[joyofdata]

> Raising small children in an apartment can be pretty stressful

this is precisely the entitlement I was hinting at - I was raised in an apartment - lots of my friends have been raised in apartments - I do live in an appartment (*1984) and we have many neighboors with children in our apartment building.

It is absolutely possible and also very humane indeed also to raise children in an apartment.

> But: apartments also aren't available! They're just as appealing to the downsizing boomer.

And this is just expressing the sad state of the US. The reason why there aren't enough apartments is not b/c of the babyboomers (also not b/c of migrants and Mexicans) - it's b/c your government fails to build them (I'm from Germany). Now you are stuck with a market in favor of people renting out own flats.

> Where will they work?

Not build at all - just live in an apartment or not move to super-hot-spot areas like LA or NY. If you can afford to build a house you can afford a car and you have to commute.

[falsedan]

So congratulations on living somewhere that medium-high density living is not only accepted but seen as obvious! My wife also grew up in an apartment.

The thing is, apartments in the US usually have timber floors (since wood is so available and cheap), and little insulation (apartments are usually on the coasts, where the climate is mild).

> It is absolutely possible and also very humane indeed also to raise children in an apartment.

I feel that the social fabric between Europeans is stronger than in the US. Sure, kids will be fine, but property owners in the US are an entitled bunch and may feel like their rights are being violated by the pitter-patter/clonk-bonk of active children. A foot of concrete absorbs a lot more noise than an inch of timber.

> it's b/c your government fails to build them

Most development in the US is done by private companies; very little housing stock is built by government agencies. The biggest constraint is building permits, which is controlled by local government like city councils, which local residents are elected to, who generally are… baby boomers.

> If you can afford to build a house you can afford a car and you have to commute.

I don't understand this comment. If I live in Nebraska/Detroit (where is is extremely easy to afford a house & jobs are scarce), do I commute to the Bay Area? That's days of driving, or getting a pilot's license.

It's the same in Australia: if I can afford to build a house in Bourke, do I commute to my job in Sydney every day? Even Centrelink says that the maximum reasonable commute is 90min each way, which (at worst) would mean getting a place in the Blue Mountains/Wollongong/Gosford.

[joyofdata]

well - at the end of the day my message is that the perspective of the article is misguided.

the problem is not too many baby boomers - the problem is unafordable and unavailable space to live.

also in Germany this is a topic - resurging in regular intervals. the nationalistic perspective is "migrants take our flats" - when in fact its the government failing to either provide flats funded by the state or influencing the market to prevent excessive rents and encourage building of cheap apartments.

it's effectively a more or less intended divide and conquer strategy - have the people fight each other then they won't fight for changes of the status quo.