[rsj_hn]

If you ran a Zoo and the population of your lions kept collapsing so that you must constantly important new lions from elsewhere in order to stabilize the population, you would not conclude "my zoo is a great place for lions". And when someone pointed out that perhaps your zoo isn't a good place to send lions, you would not reply with "completely false!". Someone who cares about lions and their well-being would try recognize that there is something very unhealthy about that zoo.

That New York's fertility rate is abysmal is not "completely false", it is an objective fact.

Whether you think New York is a "great place to have kids" is completely beside the point. What matters is whether the people in NYC actually have those kids, and at what rate. In New York, not enough of them are born to make the city a viable concern if it were not for massive population infusions from elsewhere. NYC is a population sink.

[jonahbenton]

Nope, sorry, you really have no idea what you are talking about. Larger cities in general- and wealthy societies in general- see lower number of births per mother. That's how things go. But NYC birth rates are higher than the national average (13.6/1000 vs 11.6/1000) and fertility rate roughly on par (58/1000 vs 59/1000) and is higher than many other US cities. NYC does see population influx- more of adults than children. It has ALWAYS been a city of immigrants. That's a good thing. Keeps it interesting.

Best wishes to you.