It was never “move to small towns” but “move to big city suburbs.” Those places have done well, but have often become cities themselves.

Suburbs are a (relatively) new invention, and the original reason to move there was "get away from the black people" not "tired of city and wants space".

It was made possible (sort of) by cars and freeways which made living 25 miles away from your job a thing that was practical (sort of).

> get away from the black people

That’s only true in a few places, there were plenty of places (like Seattle) that didn’t have many black people at all yet people still moved to the suburbs.

The suburbs were mostly an invention of a post World War 2 housing and baby boom.

Suburbs were in part fallout from establishment aggression against Catholic ethnic enclaves in the cities. But mostly it seems it was encouraged as a civil defense measure:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/713999949

"Though suburbanization in the United States during the 1950s is a well known story, scholars still consider postwar prosperity and basic desire on the part of the American people to move further away from problems of the inner city as its primary causes. While it is true that various factors contributed to phenomenal growth of the suburbs between 1945 and 1960, historians have thus far paid little attention to policymakers' fears of atomic attack as a significant factor in population dispersal. This article examines how sociologists, scientists, and other experts considered the reduction of urban vulnerability a Cold War priority, and worked to encourage dispersion of people and factories as a civil defence measure."

And, of course, many jobs moved or were established in the suburbs/exurbs where potential employees mostly lived. It's easy to forget that a city like Boston was still losing population in the 90s and had basically no tech jobs in the city proper.

Birthrates in the US are falling every year. The assumption that your typical young person hitting late 20s/30s will get married or have kids and move to the burbs is outdated.

Birthrates are falling worldwide, and rapidly. We're already at a point where the birth rate worldwide is just at replacement level - the current growth in population is due to increased lifespans from 1-2 generations ahead of the flattening. Only a handful of desperately poor countries - places like Yemen and Afghanistan - have high birthrates. To give a sense of how much it's changed, Iran's birthrate is lower than Europe or the US. In 1980, Iran's birthrate was four times higher than it is now.

This. It's quite clear that the fertility rates we've seen historically will not hold into the future. We are on a timer to figure out why we're structuring society in a way that so many people find repulsive enough to not wish to reproduce.

This is not a Western or first world problem, because we see it spreading as countries become more developed. In many ways, I would argue that this is an exponentially bigger problem than climate change, although I am sure there is some overlap since there mere psychological pessimism from how the media/pre-university education handles climate change is enough to get people to not want to reproduce.

I don't see it as a problem, myself. Children have gone from economic boon (more child labor to help the family) to economic expense. It makes more sense to parents to have one or two kids and pour resources into them, rather than having a half-dozen, half of whom will die as children. And for adults who aren't really infatuated with parenting, they can skip it altogether, not needing children to care for them in their old age.

> We're already at a point where the birth rate worldwide is just at replacement level

We're at around 2.5 according to:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate

And there are lots of countries in Africa that have high rates:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_d...

Yes. Desperately poor ones. And most of them are improving, rapidly. The process takes a couple of generations, once it gets rolling.

Take Egypt, for example. Its birth rate is currently 3.26, which is "high". but That's down from 6.72 in 1960 and 5.60 in 1980. Over the same period, life expectancy has risen from 48 to 71. This means population growth hasn't changed that much, from 2.8% to 1.9% - but as birth rate continues to fall and life expectancy levels out, it'll go negative, just like it did in the US and Europe, which would have negative growth, were it not for immigration.

Think this nations are just doomed and can't get any better? In the mid-19th century, places like Sweden and England had birthrates above 6, and 90% illiteracy rates. They got better. The "third world" is dropping its birth rates and increasing its economic standing far, far faster than Europe did.

edit: Over the same-ish 1965-present period, Egypt's per capita GDP grew from $165 to a recent peak of $3548, about a 20x improvement (this is constant dollars). So wealth goes up, life expectancy goes up, birth rate goes down. These things are linked in virtually every nation.

> Think this nations are just doomed and can't get any better?

I'm not sure if that question was directed at me or to all readers, but if directed to me, no, I certainly don't think that.

> So wealth goes up, life expectancy goes up, birth rate goes down.

Indeed, there is a strong and important link there.

Belief that the poor nations of Africa and Asia and the rest of the "third world" are simply doomed to poverty and suffering is widespread, even among educated and sensitive people. That's why I always make a point of showing that, a century from now, a place like Egypt today could be the Sweden of tomorrow.

No.

No what? Are you disputing any of the facts stated here? I'll give you my reference... Factfulness, by Hans Rosling.

If you seriously intend to disagree, cite sources. If you're just saying no to something that is a demonstrably true, objective fact... maybe ask yourself why that is.

"We're already at a point where the birth rate worldwide is just at replacement level" - that's just false.

Ok, for sake of argument, I'll give you that, although the UN disagrees - they expect the number of babies born per year to be about the same 100 years from now as it is today.

Looking into this more, I got some UN statistics on historic and projected crude birth rates. In 1950, it was 37.2. Today, it's 18.2. They project 13.4 by 2050. Population growth drop lags birth rate drops, due to increased lifespans worldwide. As the last generations of high birth rate get past childrearing years, it'll just go down more.

So yes, the birthrate still outstrips the death rate - but at some point in the 21st century, those numbers will flip, and they've been converging for over 50 years now.

Falling, but slowly (and it also trends up at times). The vast majority of people become parents.