Childless in Portland
My post on Michael Barone’s “trust fund leftist” column received a number of angry comments. This NY Times article mentions a couple of the “economic clusters” Barone examined. It adds an interesting fact to the discussion — the comparative dearth of children in these upscale, avant garde enclaves.
It’s a complex phenomenon.
Sample quote:
It is a problem unlike the urban woes of cities like Detroit and Baltimore, where families have fled decaying neighborhoods, business areas and schools. Portland is one of the nation’s top draws for the kind of educated, self-starting urbanites that midsize cities are competing to attract. But as these cities are remodeled to match the tastes of people living well in neighborhoods that were nearly abandoned a generation ago, they are struggling to hold on to enough children to keep schools running and parks alive with young voices.
San Francisco, where the median house price is now about $700,000, had the lowest percentage of people under 18 of any large city in the nation, 14.5 percent, compared with 25.7 percent nationwide, the 2000 census reported. Seattle, where there are more dogs than children, was a close second. Boston, Honolulu, Portland, Miami, Denver, Minneapolis, Austin and Atlanta, all considered, healthy, vibrant urban areas, were not far behind. The problem is not just that American women are having fewer children, reflected in the lowest birth rate ever recorded in the country.
Officials say that the very things that attract people who revitalize a city - dense vertical housing, fashionable restaurants and shops and mass transit that makes a car unnecessary - are driving out children by making the neighborhoods too expensive for young families.
UPDATE: Commenter 1 and 2– your anger betrays you. My observation says that the article mentions a couple of the enclaves Barone discusses. And they are experiencing a child shortage. Those are facts. I personally doubt the childlessness has anything to do with trust funds–but it may say something about the locales’ age demographics and certainly says something about lifestyles. Lifestyle choices (”avant garde” Seattle and San Francisco) –as Barone intimated and many others have documented– shade into political leanings. It certainly applies to Austin, Texas.
UPDATE TO UPDATE: Commenter 1 and 2 needs to move to the DailyKos. This site has rules about comments– including no wild name calling. Other sites allow that, but this site tries for at least a degree of civility. Further comments will get deleted.
UPDATE 3: I think Comment 8 makes an interesting point. My wife and I lived on Manhattan’s Upper West Side for almost eight years, the last two with our first child. Raising children in a huge, intense city is a challenge. It is easier in the’burbs or a smaller city. As I said in my first post, the comparative childlessness is a complex phenomenon– and personal mobility is one aspect of the complexity, ie, “we have two kids let’s move to the suburbs to raise them.” But now you have to commute…
REALLY BELATED UPDATE, FROM APRIL 8: Commenting on a website is a privilege, not a right. It’s that simple.
Actually, it doesn’t. Your claim to the contrary is intellectually dishonest tripe. You should be embarrassed. That NYT article has no evidence that possessing a trustfund has anything to do with anything. Expensive cities have fewer kids. Shocking. And there is still no good evidence for a number of Barone’s original claims. Stop according this nonsense a degree of importance it doesn’t deserve. Articles like Barone’s serve only to convey the false impression that there is a basis in fact for a (conservative) non-evidence-based belief. To reiterate: Barone’s article represents a frequent problem in public discourse - the lack of standards for being taken seriously…yes, we should all entertain different views, but one needs to demonstrate a certain amount of seriousness before one can be considered a player in the larger political debate. I don’t mean credentials, I mean the demonstrated ability to make intellectually honest arguments grounded in fact.
Comment by Paul Kerr — 3/24/2005 @ 1:34 pm
To clarify, the lines “Actually, it doesn’t. Your claim to the contrary is intellectually dishonest tripe” were referring to this line from the post: “It adds an interesting fact to the discussion”
Comment by Paul Kerr — 3/24/2005 @ 1:36 pm
Betrays me? Please. Your initial claim that the NYT’s facts “add something to the discussion” is false. The discussion was about Barone’s article, which you still can’t defend. Question: You claim that “many others have documented” that lifestyle choices “shade into political leanings.” Who are these others? And by “documented” do you mean “have some data”? Also, you claim that childlessness “certainly says something about lifestyles.” What, precisely? Do you have any data? To what degree do economic factors play a role? Are those lifestyle choices legitimate? If so, why do you bother to write about it at all? I still fail to understand why you accord Barone’s unsupported claims any degree of importance at all. Do you defend his argument RE: the influence of trustfunders? If so, why?
Comment by Paul Kerr — 3/24/2005 @ 4:53 pm
Upon re-reading your first post, your plea above that you were merely pointing out “facts” is obnoxious. You claimed that: We’ve all seen the trustfund types in action. They aren’t a new phenomenon– but as Michael Barone points out, their power and influence has grown within the Democratic Party. There is no evidence for this claim, as I have pointed out. You should provide some or retract this statement. AND What’s the downside to voters with money and time? Barone concludes with this: ” The good news for Democrats is that they have found a new source of votes and money. The bad news is that an important part of their core constituency has the characteristic that the British Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin ascribed to the press, “power without responsibility, the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages.” ” You have now publicly supported a sweeping (and serious) indictment of a group of American citizens. You should be able to defend such a claim, but you can’t. The implication that the Dmeocrats have a key group of supporters that are unpatriotic (as Barone claims) is really disgusting. AND But the key point Barone makes is the trustfunders’ guilt. I defy you to produce a shred of reliable data to support his “guilt” claim.
Comment by Paul Kerr — 3/24/2005 @ 5:04 pm
Anger indeed. Interestingly, Paul Kerr has twice now attempted to refute your observations with the position that “before one can be considered a player in the larger political debate” they must show a “demonstrated ability to make intellectually honest arguments grounded in fact”– and yet fails to provide any of the same things himself. Sarcasm? Check. Belittling? Check. Refuting opinions with a sentiment that could be summarized by “Nuh-uh, prove it”? Check. Intellectually honest arguments grounded in fact? . . . Uhhhh… Hmm. Interesting.
Comment by Kevin B. — 3/24/2005 @ 5:08 pm
Mike Barone is a pretty good social critic, been around along time so I won’t question his motives. I will throw open a hypothesis about his thesis, lack of kids in San Francisco and Minneapolis in specfic. I think my hypothesis also might apply for some of those other cities. Why are there so few kids? Gay men don’t have kids. There. Its out of the closet. SF has a very high concentration of gays. Not enough by itself to cause a kiddie deficit. High housing prices contribute. City mismanagement contributes. Having lived in both SF and Minneapolis I know they are both gay cities with leadership attentive to their voters wishes, like any good leadership should. Gay men don’t have child rearing families as their primary interests.
Comment by mercury — 3/24/2005 @ 5:29 pm
Mercury, you’re a braver soul than I, but I admit the thought had crossed my mind too, for both San Francisco and Portland. I’m assuming that lesbian women would also trend lower in child-rearing than their heterosexual counterparts, but as Paul might point out, I have no hard facts to prove that assumption.
Comment by Kevin B. — 3/24/2005 @ 5:38 pm
Having raised 2 children in the suburbs, I can honestly say that there are many reasons why parents prefer it to the cities. Expense is naturally one of the big deals when raising children. If you live in the city and have a humongous mortgage, and a move to the burbs will cut that mortgage in half - that leaves twice the money for things like after school activities, vacations, and college savings. Also, the urban flight in the 50’s and 60’s have left a legacy of kids who grew up in the burbs. They might like living in the city as young adults, but the comfort level when raising kids is the more familiar suburbs - they understand the lifestyle and that means one less thing to worry about. I suppose entire books can be written about why there are more kids in the burbs than in the city - but I think, in the end, it’s the comfort level of the parents that will decide where the family will live. When the parents have options (we’re talking about fairly affluent families in this respect) they still want to be able to relax - cities may be exciting with lots to do - but they aren’t usually known for relaxation. Oh - and I’m only speaking from my own experience… I have no studies to back up my claim. *grin*
Comment by Teresa — 3/25/2005 @ 12:16 am
I’m not sure I understand the sarcasm here. If there are facts that prove Paul wrong, shouldn’t they quickly be brought to the conversation? And if there aren’t, shouldn’t these arguments simply be labeled as opinions given the limited information available? I was unable to find the wild name-calling, but I pretty easily found legitimate points of debate that demand to be addressed on their merits. If those discussing these matters are unable to do so in civil discourse–as befits a democracy–might we not just admit that and move on?
Comment by JLo — 4/8/2005 @ 2:07 pm