The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
"High Rents in English Cities Forcing Young to Stay in Small Towns"
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From The Guardian:

High rents in English cities forcing young to stay in small towns

Young people can no longer afford to move to cities where wages are higher, says Resolution Foundation

Robert Booth, Social affairs correspondent

Wed 5 Jun 2019 19.01 EDT

A young woman looks into the window of an estate agent.
The current millennial generation is enduring a slump in mobility caused by rising rents, which can wipe out all of the financial gains of a move to a big city. Photograph: Newscast / Alamy/Alamy
One of the defining patterns of English life in which young people move from small towns with limited prospects to bigger cities to seek their fortune is in dramatic decline, research has revealed.

More young people are getting stuck where they grew up or went to university because they cannot afford rents in places where they can earn more money, according to the Resolution Foundation thinktank. It found the number of people aged 25 to 34 starting a new job and moving home in the last year has fallen 40% over the last two decades.

Whereas previous generations were able to move to big cities such as London and Manchester or regional hubs like Leeds and Bristol to develop their careers, the current millennial generation is enduring a slump in mobility caused by rising rents, which can wipe out all of the financial gains of a move.

Tory Cabinet minister David “Two-Brains” Willetts explained this in 2009. From my review in VDARE of his book “The Pinch:”

In his chapter “Houses and Jobs: Generation Crunch”, Willetts explains one reason why massive immigration works

“…better for the older baby boomers than it does for the younger generation coming on behind. Baby boomers had tight immigration controls when they were entering the jobs market but then relaxed them when they wanted more workers coming along behind. … [Immigration] increases returns to capital and holds wages down so it rewards property-owners. It is younger people who have lost out.”

Willetts nicely lays out one reason why the Blair-Brown Bubble in London did so little to alleviate unemployment among young Englishmen in blue collar cities like Liverpool (just as the Bush Bubble in Las Vegas didn’t help American workers in Cleveland, as I pointed out in VDARE.com on July 7, 2006). He writes: “Quite simply, high house prices were one factor sucking in immigrants.”

Willetts observes, “The young man from Liverpool does not see why he should live in more cramped conditions than his family back in Liverpool occupy”. In contrast, the immigrant crams into a house with many others from his country. “His willingness to be under-housed gives him a labour market advantage and it is greater if house prices are higher”. In turn, sucking in immigrants creates a vicious cycle, driving up housing prices, which drives out more natives.

Moreover, remittances sent home from London to Liverpool buy a lot less in Liverpool than remittances sent home to a poor country:

“So it is not that our Liverpudlian is somehow a bad person compared to our Pole. It is that he or she cannot capture similar benefits for their family by under-housing themselves in London.”

Willetts sums up:

“The crucial proposition therefore underlying the economics of immigration in Britain is as follows. The larger the proportion of earnings consumed by housing costs, the greater the benefits of under-housing and the greater the price advantage of immigrant labour. It was not despite the high cost of housing that immigrants came to the house price hotspots in Britain to make a living—it was because of them.”

It’s the difference between a subject and a sojourner.

 
Hide 102 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Our new class of immigrant truck drivers live in their trucks.

  2. A similar story in German language media recently about how Germans (“Ureinwohner”) who have been effectively ‘governed into poverty’ (“in die Armut regiert wurden”) must now compete with Geflüchtete (“ausländischen Hoffnungsträgern”) for affordable housing.

    • Replies: @Louis Renault
    "Governed into poverty " sounds like a truth needing suppression.
  3. Anon[770] • Disclaimer says:

    Is it possible for entire cities and towns to be gentrified vis-a-vis the capital city? For a sufficient mass of smart, industrious, innovative people, and companies, to invade a sleepy town and take it over and start good businesses?

    You’d need:

    — Internet connectivity

    — A location near a major highway or shipping port

    — A bunch of people willing to start businesses to supply support services for other businesses

    — A kernel of hepcat shops and bars and restaurants

    — Cheap housing, cheap office space

    There must be a reason why this is impossible, since it never happens, RIP all those “Silicon [fill in the blank]”

    I read a paper on Silicon Valley, and the surprising thing was all the little services and features that you’d never think of that were critical to the areas success: small machine shops to do prototyping, rent-a-CFO people, very loose enforcement of trade secret laws and a lot of employee turnover, such that every company knew the secrets of every other company, etc.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Just before I came down with cancer in 1996, the COO of the company where I worked negotiated his departure with the privilege of taking one employee with him to make his fortune on the Internet. He picked me and I came up with a pretty good idea: A/B testing (which later made a lot of money for somebody else).

    But finding some great programmers in Chicago proved difficult.

    , @Thirdtwin
    "For a sufficient mass of smart, industrious, innovative people, and companies, to invade a sleepy town and take it over and start good businesses?"

    Great idea. There must be plenty of sleepy towns in England which aren't like Rotherham. Or Luton. Or...
    , @Alden
    The housing problem is caused by 5th world immigrants living in unbelievable crowded conditions, such as 25 people in a 1000 k sq ft rowhouse. No civilized westerner can compete with that.

    You're still thinking of the typical American family of 4-6 in a small 3 bedroom house or 2 or 3 roommates in a 2 bedroom apartment.
    , @vinny
    Sounds like Seattle 20 years ago. Bezos had the right idea at the time.
    , @Anonymous
    Could you link the paper?
    , @Anonymous
    Could you link the pape?
  4. Although London does have above average concentration of Poles, quite a lot of them went straight from Polish countryside to English countryside, bypassing both Warsaw and London.

    Eastern Europeans can tolerate a bit of ‘underhousing’ but they can’t really compete with Asians.

  5. @Anon
    Is it possible for entire cities and towns to be gentrified vis-a-vis the capital city? For a sufficient mass of smart, industrious, innovative people, and companies, to invade a sleepy town and take it over and start good businesses?

    You'd need:

    -- Internet connectivity

    -- A location near a major highway or shipping port

    -- A bunch of people willing to start businesses to supply support services for other businesses

    -- A kernel of hepcat shops and bars and restaurants

    -- Cheap housing, cheap office space

    There must be a reason why this is impossible, since it never happens, RIP all those "Silicon [fill in the blank]"

    I read a paper on Silicon Valley, and the surprising thing was all the little services and features that you'd never think of that were critical to the areas success: small machine shops to do prototyping, rent-a-CFO people, very loose enforcement of trade secret laws and a lot of employee turnover, such that every company knew the secrets of every other company, etc.

    Just before I came down with cancer in 1996, the COO of the company where I worked negotiated his departure with the privilege of taking one employee with him to make his fortune on the Internet. He picked me and I came up with a pretty good idea: A/B testing (which later made a lot of money for somebody else).

    But finding some great programmers in Chicago proved difficult.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    He picked me and I came up with a pretty good idea: A/B testing (which later made a lot of money for somebody else).
     
    How was this different from those clip-out ads which had you send to "Dept. FC" in Family Circle and "Dept. WD" in Woman's Day?

    Or is that where you got the idea, which you adapted?
    , @Dave from Oz

    But finding some great programmers in Chicago proved difficult.
     
    Chicago is a city of two million people. You couldn't find a dozen people who know C (or whatever) in a city of two million?
    , @George
    "finding some great programmers in Chicago proved difficult."

    Isn't this the rational behind immigration in general.
  6. Anon[770] • Disclaimer says:

    OT

    Alan Turing finally gets a New York Times obituary. Scan Twitter and you will find joy and celebration that the Great Gay Gigabrain has gotten recognition, withheld for so many years by the bigots at the Times that was.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/05/obituaries/alan-turing-overlooked.html

    Wait a minute. Wasn’t he mostly known for his Enigma work, which was like totes super secret until way after he died? Just how famous was he upon his death?

    http://blog.castac.org/2015/03/how-influential-was-turing/

    On one hand, his work was enormously influential after his death: every computer science undergrad learns about the Turing Machine, and the lifetime achievement award of the premier organization of computer scientists is called the Turing Award. But on the other, he was relatively unknown while he lived

    But modern Twitter knows him from the flickers, and on the silver screen he was the most famous guy ever:

    The Imitation Game (which covers Turing’s work in breaking the Enigma code) is so in thrall to the Cult of the Genius that it adopts a strategy not so much of humanizing Turing or giving us a glimpse of his life, but of co-opting the audience into feeling superior to the antediluvian, backward, not to mention homophobic, Establishment.

    Every collective achievement, every breakthrough, every strategy, is credited to Turing, and to Turing alone. One scene from the film should give you a flavor of this: as his colleagues potter around trying to work out the Enigma encryption on pieces of paper, Turing, in a separate room all by himself, is shown to be building a Bombe (a massive, complicated, machine!) alone with his bare hands armed with a screwdriver!

    The movie credits Turing with every single collective achievement, from being responsible for the entirety of the British code-breaking effort to inventing the modern computer and computer science.

  7. Anon[325] • Disclaimer says:

    This actually has enormous ramifications with regards to the sexual/dating market.

    In America, as recently as 2007, lots of young people could make a good living and live in a cool urban neighborhood with impressive nightlife and nice dating prospects. So they went out a lot and partied hard with the opposite gender.

    In 2019, young live at home with their parents, in some boring neighborhood. They have little disposable income, so they stay home on Fridays. For fun, they watch NetFlix, go on their smartphones, and listen to their IPODs.

    Recent reports have found a significant decline in sexual activity among young people. There’s also been a huge number of shutdowns of nightlife venues. My guess is that these trends are related to the declining independence and economic situation of young people.

    So when you hear reports about rising youth support for socialism and rising young male “incel” anger, remember both trends are interrelated.

    • Agree: jim jones
    • Replies: @The Alarmist
    When I first moved to NYC years ago, a lot of the recent grads would share with two or three friends to make the then-high rents affordable. We jokingly called one complex in the Upper East Side the Dormatories. Happy hours were a cheap way to socialise with drinks and "free" nibbles to stretch what was left of a paycheck, because you had to come up with the money for a share for the summer in the Hamptons.

    If today's kids are still living with mom and dad, it is likely because their social media addiction has turned them into a bunch of asocial sad sacks who have no intiative to get on with their lives.

    , @Hoyos
    This is absolutely accurate and nobody left or right is talking about it. As a young man half the point is the prospect of making yourself more eligible for female attention. I was actually on both sides of this. When young men can make some dough and live in the city than there’s a possibility of catching the eye of eligible members the opposite sex. Not just about “getting laid hur hur” but actual relationships and marriages were resulting.

    As the economy continues to drag downward for the average guy you go where you can get the best dollar but that means taking jobs where there kind of are no single women. Young women still get an outsized portion of jobs in the city to fill quotas whereas men are driven into the suburbs and sticks. For real, meeting single women in the suburbs is borderline impossible and disposable income doesn’t go as far as it used to.

    When we truly commoditized mating that meant it was subject to economic factors like every other industry. Don’t get me wrong money was always involved, but natural social institutions that used to support meeting and mating (everything from the church, to just having a sidewalk culture) disappeared. And you CANNOT date at work anymore. Any sane man tries not to even look at the work hottie it’s too dangerous.

    You’re either poor, always a mating nonstarter, or you’re beat to shit working long hours in the outer rings. The top 10% or so of guys are doing alright, they always do, but most men are struggling way more than anybody let’s on.
    , @Alec Leamas (hard at work)

    In 2019, young live at home with their parents, in some boring neighborhood. They have little disposable income, so they stay home on Fridays. For fun, they watch NetFlix, go on their smartphones, and listen to their IPODs.

    Recent reports have found a significant decline in sexual activity among young people. There’s also been a huge number of shutdowns of nightlife venues. My guess is that these trends are related to the declining independence and economic situation of young people.
     
    Yes but there is a reciprocal relationship here. The 2019 young people are "digital natives" who have been "connected" to the internet and had their faces buried in screens for their whole lives.

    It has been shown that their reliance on screens has stunted their abilities to read other people's faces - moods, emotions, etc. They're uniquely unable to participate in the unspoken dance of seduction.
    , @Thea
    Until recently(early to mid 20th century) young adults did not spend time with unrelated members of the opposite sex alone. Sex was not considered recreational or even an option form unmarried women until contraception . Dating and intense exposure of unrelated boys to girls demystified the opposite sex.

    Fornication is not the historic human norm aside from prostitution. In a generation this could self correct to unmarried adults staying home then increases in young fertile marriage.( the historic norm)

    The widespread sexual marketplace is a creation of the sexual revolution.

    , @Travis
    by 2006 the housing boom was already forcing many young Americans to live with their parents. The growing tendency of young adults to live with parents predates the Great Recession and by 2007 was at the highest levels since World War II. Between 2000 and 2007 the number of young adults living with their parents increased 22%. From 2007 - 2015 it increased 14%

    1960 - 20% of young adults lived with parents
    1970 - 22% of young adults lived with parents
    1980 - 22% - young adults lived with parents
    1990 - 24% - young adults lived with parents
    2000 - 23% - young adults lived with parents
    2007 - 28% - young adults lived with parents
    2015 - 32% - young adults lived with parents
     
    Part of the reason is changing demographics. Another reason is fewer young Americans are getting married. In 1970 49% of young Americans (aged 18-34) were married with children. Today just 19% of young adults are married with children.
    , @Dave from Oz

    Recent reports have found a significant decline in sexual activity among young people. There’s also been a huge number of shutdowns of nightlife venues.
     
    Porn. It's all about the porn. Porn and Tinder.

    Tinder absolutely murdered nightlife and live music, and revealed the uncomfortable truth that people never really liked bands, they were just hoping to get laid. Kinda rough if you play music.

    Internet porn has murdered the nudie bars and strip joints.
    , @Buffalo Joe
    Anon, I was speaking with a neighbor whose daughter graduated from HS with my daughter who is now thirty. Her daughter just moved to San Fran to take a job, and to make living affordable she shares an apartment with two co-workers, a guy and a girl. Who wants to share an apartment when you are thirty?
  8. Ironically Willetts is an ardent opponent of Brexit without which we can never hope to stop the disastrous impact of immigration on living costs and wages.

    Actually in London I find rents have dropped a lot for flats, so many have been built in the past ten years. The really high cost residences are terraced, semi and detached houses, the ones you need to raise a family in.

    Fortunately for us natives our families own homes already so inheritance shelters us from the impact somewhat.

    • Replies: @Romanian

    Fortunately for us natives our families own homes already so inheritance shelters us from the impact somewhat.
     
    Only if you are an only child. And I suppose the problem is that you do not want a society of single children.
    , @Jay Ritchie
    I dont believe that rent for flats has fallen over the last 10 years - in the areas I know (north, zone 4) it much be 25-40% higher. There has been some reduction in the last 2 years though.

    Some more central areas seem to have had falling rental values from benefit changes meaning more people had to pay their own way or move some where cheaper.
  9. Anon[770] • Disclaimer says:

    live in a cool urban neighborhood with impressive nightlife and nice dating prospects

    How many of those dating prospects are interested in marriage? Actually, how many of the guys are interested in marriage?

    The only winner from the extistence of “cool urban neighborhoods” are IVF clinics twenty years down the line, serving the single mother-to-be.

    • Agree: Thea
    • Replies: @HammerJack

    The only winner from the extistence of “cool urban neighborhoods” are IVF clinics
     
    And Magic Negroes, who get to parade around like Sacred Amulets among adoring white fans.
    , @Whiskey
    Probably quite a bit, but it depends for each sex.

    Look at Jessica Valenti. Alpha widow pining for the Guido bodybuilder who had her ages 16-22. Screams at her younger husband for leaving a glass on the counter. He's a Harvard MBA big shot.

    Most men would have wifed up a 18 year old Valenti. Not so much the current model. You could argue Netflix and sports are a superior substitute. Valenti obviously regrets her choice with rage every day.

    Want fertility among Whites? Make White women inferior in status to White men and critically enforce Jim Crow with rigor so White men are comparatively higher in status than other men.
  10. Rubbing my eyes.

    Is the Guardian actually taking an honest look at how immigration hurts natives? I can hardly believe it!

    • Replies: @Altai
    The Guardian is more than Comment Is Free.
    , @Ray Huffman
    Notice they mentioned only Poles, though, not any non-whites.
  11. If only the native youth would learn to live ten or twenty to a flat, like the foreigners who are displacing them. As Captain Obvious would say, Winning!

  12. @Anon
    This actually has enormous ramifications with regards to the sexual/dating market.

    In America, as recently as 2007, lots of young people could make a good living and live in a cool urban neighborhood with impressive nightlife and nice dating prospects. So they went out a lot and partied hard with the opposite gender.

    In 2019, young live at home with their parents, in some boring neighborhood. They have little disposable income, so they stay home on Fridays. For fun, they watch NetFlix, go on their smartphones, and listen to their IPODs.

    Recent reports have found a significant decline in sexual activity among young people. There's also been a huge number of shutdowns of nightlife venues. My guess is that these trends are related to the declining independence and economic situation of young people.

    So when you hear reports about rising youth support for socialism and rising young male "incel" anger, remember both trends are interrelated.

    When I first moved to NYC years ago, a lot of the recent grads would share with two or three friends to make the then-high rents affordable. We jokingly called one complex in the Upper East Side the Dormatories. Happy hours were a cheap way to socialise with drinks and “free” nibbles to stretch what was left of a paycheck, because you had to come up with the money for a share for the summer in the Hamptons.

    If today’s kids are still living with mom and dad, it is likely because their social media addiction has turned them into a bunch of asocial sad sacks who have no intiative to get on with their lives.

    • Replies: @anon
    I believe Murray Hill somewhat infamously served the recent-college-grad-ghetto niche this decade.

    To everyone who believes the younger generation is too overtly antagonistic toward Boomers or Gen X, I offer that 2nd paragraph into evidence as Exhibit A.

    , @Anon
    Median rent in NYC is $3000.

    That doesn't get you downtown with the cool clubs. That gets you in a vibrant neighborhood, full of Blacks, Nuyoricans, Hasidics, and immigrants.

    The entire lifestyle portrayed in Friends would be impossible these days for a non-professional. Even if you do make a high income, you're working all the time.
    , @LondonBob
    Co living developments are a theme these days, basically university residences for the young.
    , @ben tillman

    When I first moved to NYC years ago, a lot of the recent grads would share with two or three friends to make the then-high rents affordable. We jokingly called one complex in the Upper East Side the Dormatories.
     
    When I lived in Manhattan (sharing a two-BR with three of my college classmates), the nearby Normandy Court at 95th and Second was popularly known as Dormandy Court.
  13. it’s far nicer in my small(ish) town anyway.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    Bingo.

    Somewhere along the way the Brain Drain slowed way down, and not just because of the rents. If the Babe Drain follows then who knows what could happen. Local nurses are definitely younger and better looking this go round.
  14. @Anon

    live in a cool urban neighborhood with impressive nightlife and nice dating prospects
     
    How many of those dating prospects are interested in marriage? Actually, how many of the guys are interested in marriage?

    The only winner from the extistence of "cool urban neighborhoods" are IVF clinics twenty years down the line, serving the single mother-to-be.

    The only winner from the extistence of “cool urban neighborhoods” are IVF clinics

    And Magic Negroes, who get to parade around like Sacred Amulets among adoring white fans.

  15. My experience with foreign students is that they all get their rents and other costs paid for by their Governments. They are quite happy to pay high rents and therefore squeeze out native families,

  16. @Anon
    This actually has enormous ramifications with regards to the sexual/dating market.

    In America, as recently as 2007, lots of young people could make a good living and live in a cool urban neighborhood with impressive nightlife and nice dating prospects. So they went out a lot and partied hard with the opposite gender.

    In 2019, young live at home with their parents, in some boring neighborhood. They have little disposable income, so they stay home on Fridays. For fun, they watch NetFlix, go on their smartphones, and listen to their IPODs.

    Recent reports have found a significant decline in sexual activity among young people. There's also been a huge number of shutdowns of nightlife venues. My guess is that these trends are related to the declining independence and economic situation of young people.

    So when you hear reports about rising youth support for socialism and rising young male "incel" anger, remember both trends are interrelated.

    This is absolutely accurate and nobody left or right is talking about it. As a young man half the point is the prospect of making yourself more eligible for female attention. I was actually on both sides of this. When young men can make some dough and live in the city than there’s a possibility of catching the eye of eligible members the opposite sex. Not just about “getting laid hur hur” but actual relationships and marriages were resulting.

    As the economy continues to drag downward for the average guy you go where you can get the best dollar but that means taking jobs where there kind of are no single women. Young women still get an outsized portion of jobs in the city to fill quotas whereas men are driven into the suburbs and sticks. For real, meeting single women in the suburbs is borderline impossible and disposable income doesn’t go as far as it used to.

    When we truly commoditized mating that meant it was subject to economic factors like every other industry. Don’t get me wrong money was always involved, but natural social institutions that used to support meeting and mating (everything from the church, to just having a sidewalk culture) disappeared. And you CANNOT date at work anymore. Any sane man tries not to even look at the work hottie it’s too dangerous.

    You’re either poor, always a mating nonstarter, or you’re beat to shit working long hours in the outer rings. The top 10% or so of guys are doing alright, they always do, but most men are struggling way more than anybody let’s on.

    • Agree: Travis, JMcG
  17. Paying more for rent than they make at work — yet another job that Whites just won’t do.

  18. Look at those bastard immigrants, chillaxing in their two-in-a-bed luxurious accommodation. And weep for the poor native Englishmen, suffering the indignity of large homes!

    • Troll: Cagey Beast
  19. @eah
    A similar story in German language media recently about how Germans ("Ureinwohner") who have been effectively 'governed into poverty' ("in die Armut regiert wurden") must now compete with Geflüchtete ("ausländischen Hoffnungsträgern") for affordable housing.

    https://twitter.com/Hartes_Geld/status/1135974390355701760

    “Governed into poverty ” sounds like a truth needing suppression.

  20. Anonymous[200] • Disclaimer says:

    IMHO young (indigenous) Britons who stay in small town middle Britain are infinitely better off in terms of quality of life, never mind the wages, than they would be if they moved to that rancid, overcrowded, overpriced, lawless, multiracial shithole, London.

  21. Anonymous[200] • Disclaimer says:

    London really has a Brazilian style income distribution to go with its third world majority population.
    Between the super wealthy and the countless masses of paupers, there is very little. Likewise, the labor market is divided between well remunerated elites and a massive massive underclass of minimum wage skivvies, scullions , and scrubbers – there is very very little inbetween as productive industry departed London a long long time ago.

    It’s a horrible, shitty, dystopian Dickensian Bladerunner style festering toilet of an ant-hill.

    • Replies: @stillCARealist
    Jeez. Do you live there? Or are you critiquing from afar? We're off to England this summer for some touristing. Would it be okay for us to visit a few famous sites or should we hunker down in some seaside cottage and paint landscapes?
  22. people aged 25 to 34 starting a new job and moving home

    This is a Britishism that translates to American as

    people aged 25 to 34 starting a new job and moving [to a new] home

    not

    people aged 25 to 34 starting a new job and moving [back to the] home [where they grew up]

    as Americans might be inclined to read it.

    FYI, fellow Yanks.

    • Replies: @Anon
    I've seen the British using "moving house" to mean "moving to a new house," but never "moving home." You learn something new every day.

    I find myself being contaminated with words like "meds," although I try to resist.

    And as a West coaster, "standing on line" drives me nuts.
    , @Anon
    Yeah, I was confused about that statement. Thanks for clarifying.
  23. massive immigration works

    “…better for the older baby boomers than it does for the younger generation coming on behind. Baby boomers had tight immigration controls when they were entering the jobs market but then relaxed them when they wanted more workers coming along behind. … [Immigration] increases returns to capital and holds wages down so it rewards property-owners. It is younger people who have lost out.”

    Shorter Willetts:

    Baby Boomers sold out their kids and countries for a mess of pottage.

    Quelle surprise.

  24. In contrast, the immigrant crams into a house with many others from his country. “His willingness to be under-housed gives him a labour market advantage… “

    The Chinaman is dreaded because of his power to under-live the white…

    –Lafcadio Hearn, 1893

  25. @Steve Sailer
    Just before I came down with cancer in 1996, the COO of the company where I worked negotiated his departure with the privilege of taking one employee with him to make his fortune on the Internet. He picked me and I came up with a pretty good idea: A/B testing (which later made a lot of money for somebody else).

    But finding some great programmers in Chicago proved difficult.

    He picked me and I came up with a pretty good idea: A/B testing (which later made a lot of money for somebody else).

    How was this different from those clip-out ads which had you send to “Dept. FC” in Family Circle and “Dept. WD” in Woman’s Day?

    Or is that where you got the idea, which you adapted?

  26. @Anon
    Is it possible for entire cities and towns to be gentrified vis-a-vis the capital city? For a sufficient mass of smart, industrious, innovative people, and companies, to invade a sleepy town and take it over and start good businesses?

    You'd need:

    -- Internet connectivity

    -- A location near a major highway or shipping port

    -- A bunch of people willing to start businesses to supply support services for other businesses

    -- A kernel of hepcat shops and bars and restaurants

    -- Cheap housing, cheap office space

    There must be a reason why this is impossible, since it never happens, RIP all those "Silicon [fill in the blank]"

    I read a paper on Silicon Valley, and the surprising thing was all the little services and features that you'd never think of that were critical to the areas success: small machine shops to do prototyping, rent-a-CFO people, very loose enforcement of trade secret laws and a lot of employee turnover, such that every company knew the secrets of every other company, etc.

    “For a sufficient mass of smart, industrious, innovative people, and companies, to invade a sleepy town and take it over and start good businesses?”

    Great idea. There must be plenty of sleepy towns in England which aren’t like Rotherham. Or Luton. Or…

  27. @Anon
    This actually has enormous ramifications with regards to the sexual/dating market.

    In America, as recently as 2007, lots of young people could make a good living and live in a cool urban neighborhood with impressive nightlife and nice dating prospects. So they went out a lot and partied hard with the opposite gender.

    In 2019, young live at home with their parents, in some boring neighborhood. They have little disposable income, so they stay home on Fridays. For fun, they watch NetFlix, go on their smartphones, and listen to their IPODs.

    Recent reports have found a significant decline in sexual activity among young people. There's also been a huge number of shutdowns of nightlife venues. My guess is that these trends are related to the declining independence and economic situation of young people.

    So when you hear reports about rising youth support for socialism and rising young male "incel" anger, remember both trends are interrelated.

    In 2019, young live at home with their parents, in some boring neighborhood. They have little disposable income, so they stay home on Fridays. For fun, they watch NetFlix, go on their smartphones, and listen to their IPODs.

    Recent reports have found a significant decline in sexual activity among young people. There’s also been a huge number of shutdowns of nightlife venues. My guess is that these trends are related to the declining independence and economic situation of young people.

    Yes but there is a reciprocal relationship here. The 2019 young people are “digital natives” who have been “connected” to the internet and had their faces buried in screens for their whole lives.

    It has been shown that their reliance on screens has stunted their abilities to read other people’s faces – moods, emotions, etc. They’re uniquely unable to participate in the unspoken dance of seduction.

  28. Thea says:
    @Anon
    This actually has enormous ramifications with regards to the sexual/dating market.

    In America, as recently as 2007, lots of young people could make a good living and live in a cool urban neighborhood with impressive nightlife and nice dating prospects. So they went out a lot and partied hard with the opposite gender.

    In 2019, young live at home with their parents, in some boring neighborhood. They have little disposable income, so they stay home on Fridays. For fun, they watch NetFlix, go on their smartphones, and listen to their IPODs.

    Recent reports have found a significant decline in sexual activity among young people. There's also been a huge number of shutdowns of nightlife venues. My guess is that these trends are related to the declining independence and economic situation of young people.

    So when you hear reports about rising youth support for socialism and rising young male "incel" anger, remember both trends are interrelated.

    Until recently(early to mid 20th century) young adults did not spend time with unrelated members of the opposite sex alone. Sex was not considered recreational or even an option form unmarried women until contraception . Dating and intense exposure of unrelated boys to girls demystified the opposite sex.

    Fornication is not the historic human norm aside from prostitution. In a generation this could self correct to unmarried adults staying home then increases in young fertile marriage.( the historic norm)

    The widespread sexual marketplace is a creation of the sexual revolution.

    • Replies: @Travis
    Prior to the introduction of birth control 33% of brides were pregnant on the day of their marriage. But I suppose the women knew the boyfriend would be forced into marriage when she got pregnant. This was quite common from the colonial period up until the sixties.

    Prior to 1960 many "had" to marry: half of teenage brides in the fifties were pregnant at the time of their wedding. In 1960, 49% of 18- to 24-year-olds were married. Today just 7% of 18-24 year-olds are married.

    In 1960, even a college-educated woman typically earned less than a man with only a high school degree, so getting married was the best investment a woman could make in her future. And even a male high school dropout was a pretty good "catch" because rising real wages usually allowed him to earn enough to support a family within a few years of finding a steady job.

    A big reason for the rise in fornication was the introduction of birth control and the rise of feminism. Another reason falling wages of men, especially those without a college degree. Working class women can's find husbands who earn more than they do today, thus Women are less likely to get married, thus more likely to fornicate. Why waste their youth on one man when they can have fun with the alpha males not see their reputations harmed.
    , @Anon
    Prosperity was one of the enablers of the sexual revolution.

    When a young man has his own place and money to spend, chasing women is very doable and very fun. This is especially true when low rents make it affordable for nightlife entrepreneurs to set up venues (and affordable for young men to live near those cool nightlife districts).

    When a young man lives with his mommy and has minimal money to spend, girls think he's a "loser" and don't want to hang out with him. So no fornication for him.

    When high rents force nightlife venues to close down and make it harder for young people to live in the "hip" part of the city, even successful young men get their sex lives ruined.

    I think we are gradually returning to the norms of previous times. I think over the coming decades, sexual conservatism will become the new norm.

    While I don't see a return to high fertility (too expensive), I do see a return to a situation in which young men will have to prove their financial worth before acquiring a regular relationship/sex partner. Given the difficulty of establishing one's self financially these days, young men will get hit the hardest by this.

    The era of casual youth dating is gradually coming to an end.
    , @Almost Missouri

    "Fornication is not the historic human norm"
     
    If I recall my Napoleon Chagnon, among hunter-gatherers, raiding neighbors and raping/abducting their women is a major pastime.

    I realize this may not be exactly what you meant by "fornication", and I agree that the late 20th century model of casual unprocreational sex is a historical anomaly and is probably not civilizationally sustainable. But I wonder if it is not the historically huge hunter-gatherer model that will replace it rather than the historically relatively brief norm of "young fertile marriage", which was byproduct of agricultural civilization.

    The hunter-gatherer abductees are often described as "wives" in our modern parlance, but given that their "husbands" can change as the tides of tribal violence ebb and flow, I'm not sure that appellation is the most apt.
    , @blank-misgivings
    Depends which time frame you're using. As another reply also implied for 90% of our species existence (before the state and before std's) fornication was probably fairly unrestricted.

    I also wouldn't idealize 'traditional' civilized societies in terms of their control on fornication. Brothels are much more common in conservative third world countries today than they are in the west, as is situational homosexuality.
  29. @Anon
    This actually has enormous ramifications with regards to the sexual/dating market.

    In America, as recently as 2007, lots of young people could make a good living and live in a cool urban neighborhood with impressive nightlife and nice dating prospects. So they went out a lot and partied hard with the opposite gender.

    In 2019, young live at home with their parents, in some boring neighborhood. They have little disposable income, so they stay home on Fridays. For fun, they watch NetFlix, go on their smartphones, and listen to their IPODs.

    Recent reports have found a significant decline in sexual activity among young people. There's also been a huge number of shutdowns of nightlife venues. My guess is that these trends are related to the declining independence and economic situation of young people.

    So when you hear reports about rising youth support for socialism and rising young male "incel" anger, remember both trends are interrelated.

    by 2006 the housing boom was already forcing many young Americans to live with their parents. The growing tendency of young adults to live with parents predates the Great Recession and by 2007 was at the highest levels since World War II. Between 2000 and 2007 the number of young adults living with their parents increased 22%. From 2007 – 2015 it increased 14%

    1960 – 20% of young adults lived with parents
    1970 – 22% of young adults lived with parents
    1980 – 22% – young adults lived with parents
    1990 – 24% – young adults lived with parents
    2000 – 23% – young adults lived with parents
    2007 – 28% – young adults lived with parents
    2015 – 32% – young adults lived with parents

    Part of the reason is changing demographics. Another reason is fewer young Americans are getting married. In 1970 49% of young Americans (aged 18-34) were married with children. Today just 19% of young adults are married with children.

    • Replies: @Anon
    Interesting data. Thanks.

    Back in 2007, from what I recall, lots of young people were out partying. A lot of them may have lived at home, but they had money to spend. Now they don't.

    Unlike the current economic boom, the 2007 boom created lots of decent paying jobs for young people (such as construction). So they actually could go out.

    I think the increasing share of young people living with parents (and decreasing share marrying) is mostly related to economics. Young people, especially men, are too impoverished to move out and marry.
  30. TED says:

    Haven’t the Brits ever heard of commuting? There are trains that go all the way from Brighton to London’s Victoria station in a little less than an hour. They run all the time. I’m sure that there must be plenty of cheap places to live out in rural Sussex close to a train station.

    Or maybe these poor millenials have to live a couple of blocks from where they work so they can stumble home after getting smashed at the local pub after work. Can’t do that if you live out in the boonies.

    • Replies: @Jay Ritchie
    Doesnt quite work as well as you might expect. Anywhere near a station in Sussex is not rural for a start, and the train costs a lot during peak commuting times. For a single person its generally cheaper to rent in London and pay local travel costs than to live far outside and pay full fares.

    There is a saving in moving further out if you have to pay for a family home - but not for a small flat or flat share.
    , @Buffalo Joe
    TED, My son in law lives in Bucks County, Pa. Each morning, when he is not flying out of Philly, he and train cars full of neighbors commute into NYC. The price you pay for a nice home in a quiet town.
    , @Expletive Deleted

    plenty of cheap places to live out in rural Sussex close to a train station.
     
    Aaaahahhahhaaaaaaa! It's the way you tell 'em. Anyway unless you get on at Brighton you won't get a seat. Or even on the train. And you wouldn't be able to afford rents or mortgages in Brighton, particularly after paying £3352 p.a. for the SR season ticket.
    Why not have a mooch around Rightmove, to see how "cheap" even a 1-bedder in some ex-council commieblock is down there? That's why the Londonistas are gagging for the HS2 rail project, expanding their commutery buying power all the way to Brum and even bloody Leeds. Causing the abandoned proles of the Former Industrial Zone up there to be priced completely out of even shelter.
  31. Are immigrants allowed to live in more cramped conditions than native British or Americans? Or are they more willing to? I suspect in London new immigrants live in what used to be called flop houses and will probably grow old and die in them. I don’t think British natives could get away with that. It is also possible that immigrants are better behaved than young British, possibly due to fear of deportation.

    • Replies: @Expletive Deleted
    "Beds in Sheds".
    Check out Googlemaps satellite views of the Indian/Pakistani ghettoes in, for instance, Luton, or Reading. Every semi has a huge "garage" out back, usually illegally built, and stuffed with extra Desis.
    Authorities are curiously disinclined to do anything about it, have been for years and years.
    But if Nigel Normie knocks up a play-house for his kids in his garden, well ... the Planning Commissars are round like lightning, he could end up in court. The vicious malefactor.
  32. In contrast, the immigrant crams into a house with many others from his country. “His willingness to be under-housed gives him a labour market advantage and it is greater if house prices are higher”. In turn, sucking in immigrants creates a vicious cycle, driving up housing prices, which drives out more natives.

    Here on the East Coast of the U.S. I have observed a phenomenon of multi-generations of South Asians (Indians and Pakistanis) residing together with spouses in a McMansion with multiple luxury vehicles in the driveway. It’s the chain migration/visa scam/housing inflation trifecta!

    It also seems that even if South Asians don’t practice enforced arranged marriages in the U.S., they do wield a great deal of persuasive influence on their first generation children and still successfully engage in matchmaking. It must confer great career advantages if you don’t have to worry about dating and socializing in your early 20s and can focus completely on schooling and grinding (while living in a communal home with meals supplied) after which a bride will be plopped down in front of you.

    Like with a lot of our newcomers, they’re not “immigrants” so much as people who have figured out how to “hack” the American society and economy.

  33. @Steve Sailer
    Just before I came down with cancer in 1996, the COO of the company where I worked negotiated his departure with the privilege of taking one employee with him to make his fortune on the Internet. He picked me and I came up with a pretty good idea: A/B testing (which later made a lot of money for somebody else).

    But finding some great programmers in Chicago proved difficult.

    But finding some great programmers in Chicago proved difficult.

    Chicago is a city of two million people. You couldn’t find a dozen people who know C (or whatever) in a city of two million?

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Chicago is a city of two million
     
    Three, back then.

    Also, programmers are like doctors. Worse, even. Doctors refuse to live in the Dakotas, but some are willing to brave Chicago.

    Gateway Computers in its heyday had a hell of a time getting people to come to Sioux City.

  34. @Anon
    This actually has enormous ramifications with regards to the sexual/dating market.

    In America, as recently as 2007, lots of young people could make a good living and live in a cool urban neighborhood with impressive nightlife and nice dating prospects. So they went out a lot and partied hard with the opposite gender.

    In 2019, young live at home with their parents, in some boring neighborhood. They have little disposable income, so they stay home on Fridays. For fun, they watch NetFlix, go on their smartphones, and listen to their IPODs.

    Recent reports have found a significant decline in sexual activity among young people. There's also been a huge number of shutdowns of nightlife venues. My guess is that these trends are related to the declining independence and economic situation of young people.

    So when you hear reports about rising youth support for socialism and rising young male "incel" anger, remember both trends are interrelated.

    Recent reports have found a significant decline in sexual activity among young people. There’s also been a huge number of shutdowns of nightlife venues.

    Porn. It’s all about the porn. Porn and Tinder.

    Tinder absolutely murdered nightlife and live music, and revealed the uncomfortable truth that people never really liked bands, they were just hoping to get laid. Kinda rough if you play music.

    Internet porn has murdered the nudie bars and strip joints.

    • Replies: @The Wild Geese Howard
    Much tougher DWI laws and sentencing didn't help.

    The typical bar's insane markups on booze and the expensive, poor quality food on offer are other discouraging factors.
    , @Anon
    Depends. Super famous bands/musicians/DJs continue to fill up huge venues.

    However, the more obscure musical performers (who account for over 99% of the musician/DJ population) are getting killed by the lack of gigs.

    They used to play/DJ a lot at clubs, parties, and smaller venues. Sometimes they'd show up to get togethers at a friend's house and start randomly playing. Now, with younger people staying in on weekend nights, musical performers typically have nowhere to display their talents and make money.

    One unsaid reason for getting into music is that girls notice you more. Unfortunately, if you rarely have the opportunity to perform in front of young females, it becomes way more difficult to get any action. If nobody knows who you are, you aren't going to have any groupies.

    With the party scene mostly dead, these days even musicians are having to swipe on Tinder.

    This is the main reason why you never hear stories about groupies anymore.

    When nightlife was strong, even obscure bands often had a groupie or two (sometimes more) who showed up to their gigs, which lead to lots of wild debauched times. A lot of stories of the debauchery got spread around or picked up by the media/entertainment industry. Now that nightlife is dead, the groupie phenomenon is pretty much gone (except for the super famous musicians).

    On the rare occasions when you do see a groupie, she'll be a 40 something woman who still listens to Nirvana and Pearl Jam.

    TLDR: It's not the 70s anymore.
  35. The treasonous and evil English ruling class wants to cut down every tree in England to house the mass legal immigration overflow pouring out of London and the hinterlands of Europe and every Third World rathole there is.

    Greedy money-grubbing rats in England are using low interest rates and laundered foreigner loot and mass legal immigration and illegal immigration to keep the asset bubble in real estate inflated.

    Evil older rats in England are attacking Young English people by using monetary extremism and laundered foreigner loot and mass immigration invasion foreigners to keep housing costs high in England.

    Young English people are being hindered and stopped from enjoying AFFORDABLE FAMILY FORMATION by greedy scum born before 1965.

    Tweet from 2015:

    • Agree: jbwilson24
  36. @LondonBob
    Ironically Willetts is an ardent opponent of Brexit without which we can never hope to stop the disastrous impact of immigration on living costs and wages.

    Actually in London I find rents have dropped a lot for flats, so many have been built in the past ten years. The really high cost residences are terraced, semi and detached houses, the ones you need to raise a family in.

    Fortunately for us natives our families own homes already so inheritance shelters us from the impact somewhat.

    Fortunately for us natives our families own homes already so inheritance shelters us from the impact somewhat.

    Only if you are an only child. And I suppose the problem is that you do not want a society of single children.

  37. MSM reviewers of “The Pinch” covered the main subject of Willetts’ book, intergenerational fairness, but didn’t mention his short and precise analysis of mass immigration.

    It is not possible to live in London on minimum wage, unless you either receive welfare benefits, or share a multiple-occupancy dwelling. Some of these have to be seen to be believed, such as 30 people living in a 3-bedroom house in suburban Harrow:

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7100633/THIRTY-people-three-bed-semi-Shocking-TV-documentary-reveals-cramped-London-house.html

    There are many factors that have contributed to this nightmare. Two originated in the Thatcher years:
    (1) She changed the law to facilitate private landlords: surprisingly, the private rented sector was negligible before Mrs T because it was almost impossible to evict tenants.
    (2) She relaxed the regulation of mortgage lending, so that instead of lending three times the husband’s salary plus one times the wife’s salary, banks could lend as much as they liked (typically now four times the sum of two salaries).

    The result was a massive inflow of capital to the housing sector, and a corresponding extraction of rent and loan interest. Combined with strict restrictions on new building through planning (zoning) laws, the cost of housing became the mechanism by which “artificial scarcity” was implemented – this being Marx’s notion of how people in the future would be forced to continue working hard even though increases in productive efficiency would appear to make this unnecessary.

    There are still more negative consequences. Firstly, many families would like to have another child, but cannot afford to do so because the wife needs to stay in full-time work to pay the rent or mortgage, yet does not earn enough to pay for “childcare”. But hey-ho, it is fashionable to believe that people are fungible, so those never born can be substituted with migrants from Somalia, Eritrea, and Pakistan.

    Secondly, rents in the private sector are approximately the same fraction of household income as mortgage repayments were 40 years ago. People must work just as hard for less personal gain – resulting in a massive transfer of wealth from the average to those who are already wealthy. And when tenants in the private rented sector retire, obviously they will not own their homes or be able to afford rent, so they will have to be housed at public expense – the familar outcome of privatising the profits, and socialising the losses.

    Two other factors that limit the availability of housing arose in the years of Labour government and the “moderate” Conservative Edward Heath.
    (1) The 1966 TV play “Cathy Come Home” by Ken Loach featured a homeless unmarried mother. In response to this tearjerking agit-prop, unmarried mothers were placed at the top of the list for subsidised public housing (then Council Housing, nowadays mostly operated by Housing Associations). This policy worked as planned for a decade, but then led to an explosion in single motherhood.
    (2) The response to the Bangladeshi War Of Independence in 1971. Many “refugees” came to Britain, promising that they would live with their relatives. After staying long enough that they could not be sent back to Bangladesh, they declared themselves homeless. Local Councils were overwhelmed with demand for housing, and so they decided that they would abandon waiting lists and allocate homes on the basis of need. Now, who has the greatest need? A British family with 2.4 children, or a Bangladeshi family with 5.6 children? The only part of this story that has not disappeared down the memory-hole is that in the 1970s significant numbers of South Asians got beaten up by “racists”.

    50 years ago British public housing was mainly occupied by married couples with children, who did not earn enough to buy their own home. Such people can still be found on Council Estates, but in reduced numbers, with the remainder of homes occupied by those with greater “need” (i.e. Pokemon Victim Points). A personal anecdote: a friend who was struggling in the private rented sector went to the local Council to ask if her family was eligible for a Council House. She was told that because she and her husband were both working, they would have to stay in the private rented sector; but if she left her husband, the Council would immediately accommodate her.

    This is how nations die. We are no longer a nation, but the territory of a globalised money-making scheme.

    None of these issues is on any political agenda. Speakable politics tends to focus on the rates of Income Tax and economic growth, the degree of underfunding of the NHS, and (recently) Brexit. Political leaders are, however, aware of the issues. Any solution to Britain’s housing problems would require a fall in house prices as a multiple of earnings; and as long as owner-occupiers constitute more than 50% of the population, any such proposal would be electoral suicide. Governments are paranoid about keeping this figure above 50%. When David Cameron’s government learned that it had fallen from 70% to 60% in a decade, with a corresponding increase in the private rented sector, they made sure to increase taxation of the latter to prevent its further growth.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Another factor is that there was precious little new housebuilding in the UK from the mid 1970s through the 1980s and into the 1990s.
    Much of this was due to the IMF cuts forced onto the Callaghan government, and the continuation of deflationary economic policies by the Thatcher administration, with punishingly high interest rates. Very few new council estates were built after 1975.

    By contrast, British governments of the 1920s and 30s, when faced with mass unemployment, greatly encouraged house building as a means of mobilising the economy and putting men back into work. Much of Britain's private housing stock, and a good many council estates, date from that period.

    Another factor is the Blair/Brown (Economist) mass immigration surge. All predictions of UK population made before year 1997 projected a flat, if not gently declining population, from there on in, indefinitely. The immigration surge has lead to the highest annual population increase increments in over century. Likely, the modestly increasing housing stock bequeathed by former generations of Britons could have coped if not for the Blair/Brown (Economist) surge.
    , @anon
    Excellent comment.
  38. @Anon

    live in a cool urban neighborhood with impressive nightlife and nice dating prospects
     
    How many of those dating prospects are interested in marriage? Actually, how many of the guys are interested in marriage?

    The only winner from the extistence of "cool urban neighborhoods" are IVF clinics twenty years down the line, serving the single mother-to-be.

    Probably quite a bit, but it depends for each sex.

    Look at Jessica Valenti. Alpha widow pining for the Guido bodybuilder who had her ages 16-22. Screams at her younger husband for leaving a glass on the counter. He’s a Harvard MBA big shot.

    Most men would have wifed up a 18 year old Valenti. Not so much the current model. You could argue Netflix and sports are a superior substitute. Valenti obviously regrets her choice with rage every day.

    Want fertility among Whites? Make White women inferior in status to White men and critically enforce Jim Crow with rigor so White men are comparatively higher in status than other men.

  39. @Almost Missouri


    people aged 25 to 34 starting a new job and moving home
     

     
    This is a Britishism that translates to American as

    people aged 25 to 34 starting a new job and moving [to a new] home
     
    not

    people aged 25 to 34 starting a new job and moving [back to the] home [where they grew up]
     
    as Americans might be inclined to read it.

    FYI, fellow Yanks.

    I’ve seen the British using “moving house” to mean “moving to a new house,” but never “moving home.” You learn something new every day.

    I find myself being contaminated with words like “meds,” although I try to resist.

    And as a West coaster, “standing on line” drives me nuts.

  40. Sean says:

    [Immigration] increases returns to capital

    It was not despite the high cost of housing that immigrants came to the house price hotspots in Britain to make a living—it was because of them.”

    The Germans suddenly started to encourage mass immigration to make their country weaker? Or are countries now run by a venal business class that does not care.

  41. @Steve Sailer
    Just before I came down with cancer in 1996, the COO of the company where I worked negotiated his departure with the privilege of taking one employee with him to make his fortune on the Internet. He picked me and I came up with a pretty good idea: A/B testing (which later made a lot of money for somebody else).

    But finding some great programmers in Chicago proved difficult.

    “finding some great programmers in Chicago proved difficult.”

    Isn’t this the rational behind immigration in general.

  42. @Almost Missouri


    people aged 25 to 34 starting a new job and moving home
     

     
    This is a Britishism that translates to American as

    people aged 25 to 34 starting a new job and moving [to a new] home
     
    not

    people aged 25 to 34 starting a new job and moving [back to the] home [where they grew up]
     
    as Americans might be inclined to read it.

    FYI, fellow Yanks.

    Yeah, I was confused about that statement. Thanks for clarifying.

  43. Baby boomers had tight immigration controls when they were entering the jobs market but then relaxed them when they wanted more workers coming along behind.

    Baby boomers in general had nothing whatsoever to do with the UK’s immigration policies.

    • Replies: @Charles Pewitt

    Baby boomers in general had nothing whatsoever to do with the UK’s immigration policies.

     

    Tony Blair and the evil English ruling class opened the mass legal immigration floodgates in 1997.

    Tony Blair is a baby boomer globalizer rat.

    Tweet from 2015:

    https://twitter.com/CharlesPewitt/status/642720707852533760
    , @Anon
    You seem to have forgotten John Major, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, David Cameron, and Theresa May.
  44. @Anon
    This actually has enormous ramifications with regards to the sexual/dating market.

    In America, as recently as 2007, lots of young people could make a good living and live in a cool urban neighborhood with impressive nightlife and nice dating prospects. So they went out a lot and partied hard with the opposite gender.

    In 2019, young live at home with their parents, in some boring neighborhood. They have little disposable income, so they stay home on Fridays. For fun, they watch NetFlix, go on their smartphones, and listen to their IPODs.

    Recent reports have found a significant decline in sexual activity among young people. There's also been a huge number of shutdowns of nightlife venues. My guess is that these trends are related to the declining independence and economic situation of young people.

    So when you hear reports about rising youth support for socialism and rising young male "incel" anger, remember both trends are interrelated.

    Anon, I was speaking with a neighbor whose daughter graduated from HS with my daughter who is now thirty. Her daughter just moved to San Fran to take a job, and to make living affordable she shares an apartment with two co-workers, a guy and a girl. Who wants to share an apartment when you are thirty?

    • Replies: @Anon
    It makes it much harder to bring back a paramour too.
  45. @ben tillman

    Baby boomers had tight immigration controls when they were entering the jobs market but then relaxed them when they wanted more workers coming along behind.
     
    Baby boomers in general had nothing whatsoever to do with the UK's immigration policies.

    Baby boomers in general had nothing whatsoever to do with the UK’s immigration policies.

    Tony Blair and the evil English ruling class opened the mass legal immigration floodgates in 1997.

    Tony Blair is a baby boomer globalizer rat.

    Tweet from 2015:

  46. With the obvious exception of London, there are not too many large cities in the UK that are more expensive than the hinterland.

    For example, Leeds is mentioned as an expensive city for rentals, but it has two large universities with a total of about 200, 00o students, and also has a huge number of health workers at its teaching hospitals, and is ranked as a “gamma” world city, equal to places like Phoenix, Austin, or Tampa in the US.

    Aside from a huge amount of student housing and local government housing, the city also has numerous housing associations and housing cooperatives that help to provide affordable housing to those who need it.

    https://www.leeds.gov.uk/residents/housing/registered-providers

    What is more, housing in the small towns and rural communities around Leeds like Knaresborough, Harrogate, Otley, Ilkley, Skipton is MORE expensive than in the city, though if you go just under 10 miles west of Leeds, you will arrive in poor old Bradford which has a population of half a million, and is possibly the most vibrant city in England and has a fast growing young population, though it has a rate of birth defects of 3%, nearly twice the national average of 1.7%.

    • Replies: @Jay Ritchie
    @jonathan mason

    My thoughts too - rental prices in Manchester and Leeds can be very cheap. I think the broader issue is young people being stuck with their parents.

    When I was in my early 20's I'd have had plenty of friends with a spare room, or at least a sofa to stay on while moving to a new city. The equivalent young people now live in flatshares or with parents making it harder to put up a mate which they look for work.
  47. @Thea
    Until recently(early to mid 20th century) young adults did not spend time with unrelated members of the opposite sex alone. Sex was not considered recreational or even an option form unmarried women until contraception . Dating and intense exposure of unrelated boys to girls demystified the opposite sex.

    Fornication is not the historic human norm aside from prostitution. In a generation this could self correct to unmarried adults staying home then increases in young fertile marriage.( the historic norm)

    The widespread sexual marketplace is a creation of the sexual revolution.

    Prior to the introduction of birth control 33% of brides were pregnant on the day of their marriage. But I suppose the women knew the boyfriend would be forced into marriage when she got pregnant. This was quite common from the colonial period up until the sixties.

    Prior to 1960 many “had” to marry: half of teenage brides in the fifties were pregnant at the time of their wedding. In 1960, 49% of 18- to 24-year-olds were married. Today just 7% of 18-24 year-olds are married.

    In 1960, even a college-educated woman typically earned less than a man with only a high school degree, so getting married was the best investment a woman could make in her future. And even a male high school dropout was a pretty good “catch” because rising real wages usually allowed him to earn enough to support a family within a few years of finding a steady job.

    A big reason for the rise in fornication was the introduction of birth control and the rise of feminism. Another reason falling wages of men, especially those without a college degree. Working class women can’s find husbands who earn more than they do today, thus Women are less likely to get married, thus more likely to fornicate. Why waste their youth on one man when they can have fun with the alpha males not see their reputations harmed.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Working class women can’s find husbands who earn more than they do today, thus Women are less likely to get married, thus more likely to fornicate. Why waste their youth on one man when they can have fun with the alpha males not see their reputations harmed.
     
    You are assuming it is women, rather than men, who resist marriage. There is no evidence for this assertion.
    , @stillCARealist

    Prior to the introduction of birth control 33% of brides were pregnant on the day of their marriage.
     
    How on earth do you know that? I think it's more likely that 1/3 of brides became pregnant on their honeymoons.

    For the last 100 years the TFR has been between 2 and 4 kids.

    https://www.pbs.org/fmc/book/4family9.htm

    People know where babies come from, and they know how to prevent them if they're serious about it. My grandmother had only 2 kids and her mother had only 2 kids. They knew.
    , @jack daniels
    This is a helpful post, but where do your statistics come from? Such statistics are worthless unless we know the source. Thanks for any guidance. - JD
    , @Thea
    Yes I’ve read that but they we were often betrothed ( not engaged, a more formal relationship we no longer recognize)already. It wasn’t two randomly promiscuous people with no ties to each other forced to marry after one night of fun.
  48. @Dave from Oz

    Recent reports have found a significant decline in sexual activity among young people. There’s also been a huge number of shutdowns of nightlife venues.
     
    Porn. It's all about the porn. Porn and Tinder.

    Tinder absolutely murdered nightlife and live music, and revealed the uncomfortable truth that people never really liked bands, they were just hoping to get laid. Kinda rough if you play music.

    Internet porn has murdered the nudie bars and strip joints.

    Much tougher DWI laws and sentencing didn’t help.

    The typical bar’s insane markups on booze and the expensive, poor quality food on offer are other discouraging factors.

  49. Most of the people I grew up with moved out of the city. The ones who stayed are mainly heirs.

    I have mixed feelings about being “displaced” myself. On the one hand, it sucks to have to leave your hometown, but on the other my hometown (Seattle) has changed in ways that I really don’t like. Also, living in a smaller city has a lot of perks, such as less traffic, far less public homosexuality, more moderate politics, and your kids not being minorities in their schools. The only real downside, and it’s a pretty big one, is that the pay is lousy in most jobs. However, if you get a decent job or can start a business you save a whole lot on housing, taxes, groceries, etc.

    Overall, given the way things are today, I’d recommend that most young people get out of big cities. Unless you’re very ambitious and have a good shot at a top-tier job, they just aren’t worth it.

    Finally, I’d say that materialism (i.e. greed) got us into this mess in the first place. More of the same isn’t going to get us out of it, and there are plenty of virtues in simple, thrifty living, so there’s nothing wrong with living modestly if that’s what it takes to live in a better community among your own kind.

  50. Anonymous[551] • Disclaimer says:
    @James N. Kennett
    MSM reviewers of "The Pinch" covered the main subject of Willetts' book, intergenerational fairness, but didn't mention his short and precise analysis of mass immigration.

    It is not possible to live in London on minimum wage, unless you either receive welfare benefits, or share a multiple-occupancy dwelling. Some of these have to be seen to be believed, such as 30 people living in a 3-bedroom house in suburban Harrow:

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7100633/THIRTY-people-three-bed-semi-Shocking-TV-documentary-reveals-cramped-London-house.html

    There are many factors that have contributed to this nightmare. Two originated in the Thatcher years:
    (1) She changed the law to facilitate private landlords: surprisingly, the private rented sector was negligible before Mrs T because it was almost impossible to evict tenants.
    (2) She relaxed the regulation of mortgage lending, so that instead of lending three times the husband's salary plus one times the wife's salary, banks could lend as much as they liked (typically now four times the sum of two salaries).

    The result was a massive inflow of capital to the housing sector, and a corresponding extraction of rent and loan interest. Combined with strict restrictions on new building through planning (zoning) laws, the cost of housing became the mechanism by which "artificial scarcity" was implemented - this being Marx's notion of how people in the future would be forced to continue working hard even though increases in productive efficiency would appear to make this unnecessary.

    There are still more negative consequences. Firstly, many families would like to have another child, but cannot afford to do so because the wife needs to stay in full-time work to pay the rent or mortgage, yet does not earn enough to pay for "childcare". But hey-ho, it is fashionable to believe that people are fungible, so those never born can be substituted with migrants from Somalia, Eritrea, and Pakistan.

    Secondly, rents in the private sector are approximately the same fraction of household income as mortgage repayments were 40 years ago. People must work just as hard for less personal gain - resulting in a massive transfer of wealth from the average to those who are already wealthy. And when tenants in the private rented sector retire, obviously they will not own their homes or be able to afford rent, so they will have to be housed at public expense - the familar outcome of privatising the profits, and socialising the losses.

    Two other factors that limit the availability of housing arose in the years of Labour government and the "moderate" Conservative Edward Heath.
    (1) The 1966 TV play "Cathy Come Home" by Ken Loach featured a homeless unmarried mother. In response to this tearjerking agit-prop, unmarried mothers were placed at the top of the list for subsidised public housing (then Council Housing, nowadays mostly operated by Housing Associations). This policy worked as planned for a decade, but then led to an explosion in single motherhood.
    (2) The response to the Bangladeshi War Of Independence in 1971. Many "refugees" came to Britain, promising that they would live with their relatives. After staying long enough that they could not be sent back to Bangladesh, they declared themselves homeless. Local Councils were overwhelmed with demand for housing, and so they decided that they would abandon waiting lists and allocate homes on the basis of need. Now, who has the greatest need? A British family with 2.4 children, or a Bangladeshi family with 5.6 children? The only part of this story that has not disappeared down the memory-hole is that in the 1970s significant numbers of South Asians got beaten up by "racists".

    50 years ago British public housing was mainly occupied by married couples with children, who did not earn enough to buy their own home. Such people can still be found on Council Estates, but in reduced numbers, with the remainder of homes occupied by those with greater "need" (i.e. Pokemon Victim Points). A personal anecdote: a friend who was struggling in the private rented sector went to the local Council to ask if her family was eligible for a Council House. She was told that because she and her husband were both working, they would have to stay in the private rented sector; but if she left her husband, the Council would immediately accommodate her.

    This is how nations die. We are no longer a nation, but the territory of a globalised money-making scheme.

    None of these issues is on any political agenda. Speakable politics tends to focus on the rates of Income Tax and economic growth, the degree of underfunding of the NHS, and (recently) Brexit. Political leaders are, however, aware of the issues. Any solution to Britain's housing problems would require a fall in house prices as a multiple of earnings; and as long as owner-occupiers constitute more than 50% of the population, any such proposal would be electoral suicide. Governments are paranoid about keeping this figure above 50%. When David Cameron's government learned that it had fallen from 70% to 60% in a decade, with a corresponding increase in the private rented sector, they made sure to increase taxation of the latter to prevent its further growth.

    Another factor is that there was precious little new housebuilding in the UK from the mid 1970s through the 1980s and into the 1990s.
    Much of this was due to the IMF cuts forced onto the Callaghan government, and the continuation of deflationary economic policies by the Thatcher administration, with punishingly high interest rates. Very few new council estates were built after 1975.

    By contrast, British governments of the 1920s and 30s, when faced with mass unemployment, greatly encouraged house building as a means of mobilising the economy and putting men back into work. Much of Britain’s private housing stock, and a good many council estates, date from that period.

    Another factor is the Blair/Brown (Economist) mass immigration surge. All predictions of UK population made before year 1997 projected a flat, if not gently declining population, from there on in, indefinitely. The immigration surge has lead to the highest annual population increase increments in over century. Likely, the modestly increasing housing stock bequeathed by former generations of Britons could have coped if not for the Blair/Brown (Economist) surge.

  51. Anon[731] • Disclaimer says:

    Big US cities run the same way. But the problem is, recent immigrants get free housing and government assistance to help establish themselves, and meanwhile, they grab the decent paying jobs. But US citizens in smaller towns can’t just move to New York or big cities like that, because they’re not getting monetary ‘transition’ assistance, which always gives immigrants a leg up over native US citizens in nailing down those big city jobs. This plays a big factor is why all those Democrat-voting business owners in big cities love immigrants.

    • Agree: jim jones
  52. @Travis
    Prior to the introduction of birth control 33% of brides were pregnant on the day of their marriage. But I suppose the women knew the boyfriend would be forced into marriage when she got pregnant. This was quite common from the colonial period up until the sixties.

    Prior to 1960 many "had" to marry: half of teenage brides in the fifties were pregnant at the time of their wedding. In 1960, 49% of 18- to 24-year-olds were married. Today just 7% of 18-24 year-olds are married.

    In 1960, even a college-educated woman typically earned less than a man with only a high school degree, so getting married was the best investment a woman could make in her future. And even a male high school dropout was a pretty good "catch" because rising real wages usually allowed him to earn enough to support a family within a few years of finding a steady job.

    A big reason for the rise in fornication was the introduction of birth control and the rise of feminism. Another reason falling wages of men, especially those without a college degree. Working class women can's find husbands who earn more than they do today, thus Women are less likely to get married, thus more likely to fornicate. Why waste their youth on one man when they can have fun with the alpha males not see their reputations harmed.

    Working class women can’s find husbands who earn more than they do today, thus Women are less likely to get married, thus more likely to fornicate. Why waste their youth on one man when they can have fun with the alpha males not see their reputations harmed.

    You are assuming it is women, rather than men, who resist marriage. There is no evidence for this assertion.

    • Replies: @Alden
    Another 60 year old male virgin chimes in with his hatred of the women who've rejected him for the last 45 years. It's so obvious which male commenters on this site ain't getting any.
  53. @LondonBob
    Ironically Willetts is an ardent opponent of Brexit without which we can never hope to stop the disastrous impact of immigration on living costs and wages.

    Actually in London I find rents have dropped a lot for flats, so many have been built in the past ten years. The really high cost residences are terraced, semi and detached houses, the ones you need to raise a family in.

    Fortunately for us natives our families own homes already so inheritance shelters us from the impact somewhat.

    I dont believe that rent for flats has fallen over the last 10 years – in the areas I know (north, zone 4) it much be 25-40% higher. There has been some reduction in the last 2 years though.

    Some more central areas seem to have had falling rental values from benefit changes meaning more people had to pay their own way or move some where cheaper.

  54. @TED
    Haven't the Brits ever heard of commuting? There are trains that go all the way from Brighton to London's Victoria station in a little less than an hour. They run all the time. I'm sure that there must be plenty of cheap places to live out in rural Sussex close to a train station.

    Or maybe these poor millenials have to live a couple of blocks from where they work so they can stumble home after getting smashed at the local pub after work. Can't do that if you live out in the boonies.

    Doesnt quite work as well as you might expect. Anywhere near a station in Sussex is not rural for a start, and the train costs a lot during peak commuting times. For a single person its generally cheaper to rent in London and pay local travel costs than to live far outside and pay full fares.

    There is a saving in moving further out if you have to pay for a family home – but not for a small flat or flat share.

  55. @Jonathan Mason
    With the obvious exception of London, there are not too many large cities in the UK that are more expensive than the hinterland.

    For example, Leeds is mentioned as an expensive city for rentals, but it has two large universities with a total of about 200, 00o students, and also has a huge number of health workers at its teaching hospitals, and is ranked as a "gamma" world city, equal to places like Phoenix, Austin, or Tampa in the US.

    Aside from a huge amount of student housing and local government housing, the city also has numerous housing associations and housing cooperatives that help to provide affordable housing to those who need it.

    https://www.leeds.gov.uk/residents/housing/registered-providers

    What is more, housing in the small towns and rural communities around Leeds like Knaresborough, Harrogate, Otley, Ilkley, Skipton is MORE expensive than in the city, though if you go just under 10 miles west of Leeds, you will arrive in poor old Bradford which has a population of half a million, and is possibly the most vibrant city in England and has a fast growing young population, though it has a rate of birth defects of 3%, nearly twice the national average of 1.7%.

    @jonathan mason

    My thoughts too – rental prices in Manchester and Leeds can be very cheap. I think the broader issue is young people being stuck with their parents.

    When I was in my early 20’s I’d have had plenty of friends with a spare room, or at least a sofa to stay on while moving to a new city. The equivalent young people now live in flatshares or with parents making it harder to put up a mate which they look for work.

  56. This young markets analyst made a go of it in 2002, commuting from a suburban London copy of Concordia University, Montreal (Loyola Campus). She was only making £18,000. Maybe that was a lot back then.

  57. @TED
    Haven't the Brits ever heard of commuting? There are trains that go all the way from Brighton to London's Victoria station in a little less than an hour. They run all the time. I'm sure that there must be plenty of cheap places to live out in rural Sussex close to a train station.

    Or maybe these poor millenials have to live a couple of blocks from where they work so they can stumble home after getting smashed at the local pub after work. Can't do that if you live out in the boonies.

    TED, My son in law lives in Bucks County, Pa. Each morning, when he is not flying out of Philly, he and train cars full of neighbors commute into NYC. The price you pay for a nice home in a quiet town.

  58. @The Alarmist
    When I first moved to NYC years ago, a lot of the recent grads would share with two or three friends to make the then-high rents affordable. We jokingly called one complex in the Upper East Side the Dormatories. Happy hours were a cheap way to socialise with drinks and "free" nibbles to stretch what was left of a paycheck, because you had to come up with the money for a share for the summer in the Hamptons.

    If today's kids are still living with mom and dad, it is likely because their social media addiction has turned them into a bunch of asocial sad sacks who have no intiative to get on with their lives.

    I believe Murray Hill somewhat infamously served the recent-college-grad-ghetto niche this decade.

    To everyone who believes the younger generation is too overtly antagonistic toward Boomers or Gen X, I offer that 2nd paragraph into evidence as Exhibit A.

    • Replies: @The Alarmist

    "To everyone who believes the younger generation is too overtly antagonistic toward Boomers or Gen X, I offer that 2nd paragraph into evidence as Exhibit A."
     
    Actually, my second statement would be Exhibit A for a case of Boomer antipathy for the younger generations.

    The point is that it is pretty gutless to hole up in your parents' house because your standard of living might suffer for a year or two, and I attribute much of that to the Social Media generations seeing how all their friends' lives as portrayed online and would rather die alone than move in with a friend or two and reveal just how luxurious their lives really aren't.

    I can't wait to see this crowd hit the shores at Nampo, Bandar Abbas, or Caracas
    , @Alden
    The boomer generation are the grandparents, not the parents of the 20 to 30 age group.
  59. @James N. Kennett
    MSM reviewers of "The Pinch" covered the main subject of Willetts' book, intergenerational fairness, but didn't mention his short and precise analysis of mass immigration.

    It is not possible to live in London on minimum wage, unless you either receive welfare benefits, or share a multiple-occupancy dwelling. Some of these have to be seen to be believed, such as 30 people living in a 3-bedroom house in suburban Harrow:

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7100633/THIRTY-people-three-bed-semi-Shocking-TV-documentary-reveals-cramped-London-house.html

    There are many factors that have contributed to this nightmare. Two originated in the Thatcher years:
    (1) She changed the law to facilitate private landlords: surprisingly, the private rented sector was negligible before Mrs T because it was almost impossible to evict tenants.
    (2) She relaxed the regulation of mortgage lending, so that instead of lending three times the husband's salary plus one times the wife's salary, banks could lend as much as they liked (typically now four times the sum of two salaries).

    The result was a massive inflow of capital to the housing sector, and a corresponding extraction of rent and loan interest. Combined with strict restrictions on new building through planning (zoning) laws, the cost of housing became the mechanism by which "artificial scarcity" was implemented - this being Marx's notion of how people in the future would be forced to continue working hard even though increases in productive efficiency would appear to make this unnecessary.

    There are still more negative consequences. Firstly, many families would like to have another child, but cannot afford to do so because the wife needs to stay in full-time work to pay the rent or mortgage, yet does not earn enough to pay for "childcare". But hey-ho, it is fashionable to believe that people are fungible, so those never born can be substituted with migrants from Somalia, Eritrea, and Pakistan.

    Secondly, rents in the private sector are approximately the same fraction of household income as mortgage repayments were 40 years ago. People must work just as hard for less personal gain - resulting in a massive transfer of wealth from the average to those who are already wealthy. And when tenants in the private rented sector retire, obviously they will not own their homes or be able to afford rent, so they will have to be housed at public expense - the familar outcome of privatising the profits, and socialising the losses.

    Two other factors that limit the availability of housing arose in the years of Labour government and the "moderate" Conservative Edward Heath.
    (1) The 1966 TV play "Cathy Come Home" by Ken Loach featured a homeless unmarried mother. In response to this tearjerking agit-prop, unmarried mothers were placed at the top of the list for subsidised public housing (then Council Housing, nowadays mostly operated by Housing Associations). This policy worked as planned for a decade, but then led to an explosion in single motherhood.
    (2) The response to the Bangladeshi War Of Independence in 1971. Many "refugees" came to Britain, promising that they would live with their relatives. After staying long enough that they could not be sent back to Bangladesh, they declared themselves homeless. Local Councils were overwhelmed with demand for housing, and so they decided that they would abandon waiting lists and allocate homes on the basis of need. Now, who has the greatest need? A British family with 2.4 children, or a Bangladeshi family with 5.6 children? The only part of this story that has not disappeared down the memory-hole is that in the 1970s significant numbers of South Asians got beaten up by "racists".

    50 years ago British public housing was mainly occupied by married couples with children, who did not earn enough to buy their own home. Such people can still be found on Council Estates, but in reduced numbers, with the remainder of homes occupied by those with greater "need" (i.e. Pokemon Victim Points). A personal anecdote: a friend who was struggling in the private rented sector went to the local Council to ask if her family was eligible for a Council House. She was told that because she and her husband were both working, they would have to stay in the private rented sector; but if she left her husband, the Council would immediately accommodate her.

    This is how nations die. We are no longer a nation, but the territory of a globalised money-making scheme.

    None of these issues is on any political agenda. Speakable politics tends to focus on the rates of Income Tax and economic growth, the degree of underfunding of the NHS, and (recently) Brexit. Political leaders are, however, aware of the issues. Any solution to Britain's housing problems would require a fall in house prices as a multiple of earnings; and as long as owner-occupiers constitute more than 50% of the population, any such proposal would be electoral suicide. Governments are paranoid about keeping this figure above 50%. When David Cameron's government learned that it had fallen from 70% to 60% in a decade, with a corresponding increase in the private rented sector, they made sure to increase taxation of the latter to prevent its further growth.

    Excellent comment.

  60. @Anonymous
    London really has a Brazilian style income distribution to go with its third world majority population.
    Between the super wealthy and the countless masses of paupers, there is very little. Likewise, the labor market is divided between well remunerated elites and a massive massive underclass of minimum wage skivvies, scullions , and scrubbers - there is very very little inbetween as productive industry departed London a long long time ago.

    It's a horrible, shitty, dystopian Dickensian Bladerunner style festering toilet of an ant-hill.

    Jeez. Do you live there? Or are you critiquing from afar? We’re off to England this summer for some touristing. Would it be okay for us to visit a few famous sites or should we hunker down in some seaside cottage and paint landscapes?

  61. @ben tillman

    Baby boomers had tight immigration controls when they were entering the jobs market but then relaxed them when they wanted more workers coming along behind.
     
    Baby boomers in general had nothing whatsoever to do with the UK's immigration policies.

    You seem to have forgotten John Major, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, David Cameron, and Theresa May.

    • Replies: @ben tillman
    No, I haven't. Their being Boomers is irrelevant.
  62. @Travis
    Prior to the introduction of birth control 33% of brides were pregnant on the day of their marriage. But I suppose the women knew the boyfriend would be forced into marriage when she got pregnant. This was quite common from the colonial period up until the sixties.

    Prior to 1960 many "had" to marry: half of teenage brides in the fifties were pregnant at the time of their wedding. In 1960, 49% of 18- to 24-year-olds were married. Today just 7% of 18-24 year-olds are married.

    In 1960, even a college-educated woman typically earned less than a man with only a high school degree, so getting married was the best investment a woman could make in her future. And even a male high school dropout was a pretty good "catch" because rising real wages usually allowed him to earn enough to support a family within a few years of finding a steady job.

    A big reason for the rise in fornication was the introduction of birth control and the rise of feminism. Another reason falling wages of men, especially those without a college degree. Working class women can's find husbands who earn more than they do today, thus Women are less likely to get married, thus more likely to fornicate. Why waste their youth on one man when they can have fun with the alpha males not see their reputations harmed.

    Prior to the introduction of birth control 33% of brides were pregnant on the day of their marriage.

    How on earth do you know that? I think it’s more likely that 1/3 of brides became pregnant on their honeymoons.

    For the last 100 years the TFR has been between 2 and 4 kids.

    https://www.pbs.org/fmc/book/4family9.htm

    People know where babies come from, and they know how to prevent them if they’re serious about it. My grandmother had only 2 kids and her mother had only 2 kids. They knew.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    How on earth do you know that? I think it’s more likely that 1/3 of brides became pregnant on their honeymoons.
     
    You can work it out by comparing marriage dates with birthdates. Out-of-wedlock birthrates have soared because men are not marrying girls they get pregnant.

    https://www.brookings.edu/research/an-analysis-of-out-of-wedlock-births-in-the-united-states/
    , @Alden
    There are extensive records. In England they go back to the 1300's. Remember, every little Christian church kept the birth,marriage, death and often other records, long before they were kept in government offices. Numerous historians have looked at those records in America and Europe and see the same thing over and over again. Marriage in March, first baby born in July. It's well known among American and European historians.
  63. @Buffalo Joe
    Anon, I was speaking with a neighbor whose daughter graduated from HS with my daughter who is now thirty. Her daughter just moved to San Fran to take a job, and to make living affordable she shares an apartment with two co-workers, a guy and a girl. Who wants to share an apartment when you are thirty?

    It makes it much harder to bring back a paramour too.

  64. @TED
    Haven't the Brits ever heard of commuting? There are trains that go all the way from Brighton to London's Victoria station in a little less than an hour. They run all the time. I'm sure that there must be plenty of cheap places to live out in rural Sussex close to a train station.

    Or maybe these poor millenials have to live a couple of blocks from where they work so they can stumble home after getting smashed at the local pub after work. Can't do that if you live out in the boonies.

    plenty of cheap places to live out in rural Sussex close to a train station.

    Aaaahahhahhaaaaaaa! It’s the way you tell ’em. Anyway unless you get on at Brighton you won’t get a seat. Or even on the train. And you wouldn’t be able to afford rents or mortgages in Brighton, particularly after paying £3352 p.a. for the SR season ticket.
    Why not have a mooch around Rightmove, to see how “cheap” even a 1-bedder in some ex-council commieblock is down there? That’s why the Londonistas are gagging for the HS2 rail project, expanding their commutery buying power all the way to Brum and even bloody Leeds. Causing the abandoned proles of the Former Industrial Zone up there to be priced completely out of even shelter.

    • Replies: @Expletive Deleted
    Oh oh. I'm a liar and a fool. You can snap up a bijou detatched residence in Bognor for the price of a used van. And it's only a mile from the station, 2hrs to Victoria, god knows how long back. A complete doss.
    https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-47169324.html
  65. Anon[172] • Disclaimer says:
    @Dave from Oz

    Recent reports have found a significant decline in sexual activity among young people. There’s also been a huge number of shutdowns of nightlife venues.
     
    Porn. It's all about the porn. Porn and Tinder.

    Tinder absolutely murdered nightlife and live music, and revealed the uncomfortable truth that people never really liked bands, they were just hoping to get laid. Kinda rough if you play music.

    Internet porn has murdered the nudie bars and strip joints.

    Depends. Super famous bands/musicians/DJs continue to fill up huge venues.

    However, the more obscure musical performers (who account for over 99% of the musician/DJ population) are getting killed by the lack of gigs.

    They used to play/DJ a lot at clubs, parties, and smaller venues. Sometimes they’d show up to get togethers at a friend’s house and start randomly playing. Now, with younger people staying in on weekend nights, musical performers typically have nowhere to display their talents and make money.

    One unsaid reason for getting into music is that girls notice you more. Unfortunately, if you rarely have the opportunity to perform in front of young females, it becomes way more difficult to get any action. If nobody knows who you are, you aren’t going to have any groupies.

    With the party scene mostly dead, these days even musicians are having to swipe on Tinder.

    This is the main reason why you never hear stories about groupies anymore.

    When nightlife was strong, even obscure bands often had a groupie or two (sometimes more) who showed up to their gigs, which lead to lots of wild debauched times. A lot of stories of the debauchery got spread around or picked up by the media/entertainment industry. Now that nightlife is dead, the groupie phenomenon is pretty much gone (except for the super famous musicians).

    On the rare occasions when you do see a groupie, she’ll be a 40 something woman who still listens to Nirvana and Pearl Jam.

    TLDR: It’s not the 70s anymore.

  66. @George
    Are immigrants allowed to live in more cramped conditions than native British or Americans? Or are they more willing to? I suspect in London new immigrants live in what used to be called flop houses and will probably grow old and die in them. I don't think British natives could get away with that. It is also possible that immigrants are better behaved than young British, possibly due to fear of deportation.

    “Beds in Sheds”.
    Check out Googlemaps satellite views of the Indian/Pakistani ghettoes in, for instance, Luton, or Reading. Every semi has a huge “garage” out back, usually illegally built, and stuffed with extra Desis.
    Authorities are curiously disinclined to do anything about it, have been for years and years.
    But if Nigel Normie knocks up a play-house for his kids in his garden, well … the Planning Commissars are round like lightning, he could end up in court. The vicious malefactor.

  67. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-essex-47793319/the-families-living-in-converted-office-blocks-in-harlow

    Families re-homed in converted office blocks have spoken of living in unsuitable and isolated accommodation, with drug-fuelled neighbours and car parks for playgrounds.

    About 1,000 temporary homes have been created in former offices in Harlow, Essex, following a relaxation in planning rules. Many house people from London who cannot find permanent accommodation in the capital.

    These are termed ‘micro flats’ no room to swing a cat.

    It is all very well for Willets to point out that the baby boomers benefited from immigration controls when they entered the jobs market, but that was Commonwealth (ie former Empire) immigration, which Britain could tighten up as much as it wanted because it was a sovereign country. Enoch Powell was denounced but the Conservatives Party tightened up immigration greatly and the Labour Party quietly went along. While the Blair Brown years boom was like any boom of course driving up the cost of housing, the most important thing they did was take off the immigration limits that had been enacted in response to Powell decades before, and then they acceded to the EU requirement for allowing freedom of movement by EU citizens. The number who came to Britain was more than an order of magnitude more that the Bliar-Brown government consultants had projected.

    Willets opposes Brexit and says

    They [the young] voted overwhelmingly to Remain in the European Union in 2016 – and since then have become even stronger in their views. Since the referendum, nearly 2 million young people are now of voting age. Of those in this group who are certain to vote, an astounding 87% support the United Kingdom staying in the European Union

    Britain staying in the EU will entail accepting freedom of labour to move within the EU. I really don’t think Willet’s (a member of the British Henry Jackson society) is concerned with anything but liberal democracy, which for him entails full on Ricardian economics with freedom of labour to move between countries. All very well for the business class and the aspirational middle classes, but what about those whose wages are being suppressed? The fact of the matter is Britain’s productive capacity was steadily eroding and had been ever since it decided by referendum to enter Germany and France’s anti nation state war entity, what was then called the European Economic Community. Relative to Germany and France, Britain was declining. Don’t blame one sector of the British population for Brexit, blame an emergent quality of self preservation by the state itself. The people who voted for Brexit did so out of a belief that the British nation -state was benevolent and protective of their interests.

  68. Anon[172] • Disclaimer says:
    @Thea
    Until recently(early to mid 20th century) young adults did not spend time with unrelated members of the opposite sex alone. Sex was not considered recreational or even an option form unmarried women until contraception . Dating and intense exposure of unrelated boys to girls demystified the opposite sex.

    Fornication is not the historic human norm aside from prostitution. In a generation this could self correct to unmarried adults staying home then increases in young fertile marriage.( the historic norm)

    The widespread sexual marketplace is a creation of the sexual revolution.

    Prosperity was one of the enablers of the sexual revolution.

    When a young man has his own place and money to spend, chasing women is very doable and very fun. This is especially true when low rents make it affordable for nightlife entrepreneurs to set up venues (and affordable for young men to live near those cool nightlife districts).

    When a young man lives with his mommy and has minimal money to spend, girls think he’s a “loser” and don’t want to hang out with him. So no fornication for him.

    When high rents force nightlife venues to close down and make it harder for young people to live in the “hip” part of the city, even successful young men get their sex lives ruined.

    I think we are gradually returning to the norms of previous times. I think over the coming decades, sexual conservatism will become the new norm.

    While I don’t see a return to high fertility (too expensive), I do see a return to a situation in which young men will have to prove their financial worth before acquiring a regular relationship/sex partner. Given the difficulty of establishing one’s self financially these days, young men will get hit the hardest by this.

    The era of casual youth dating is gradually coming to an end.

    • Replies: @Alden
    I've seen a lot of articles about how bars, clubs and dance clubs are closing more and more because they have no customers. It could be money, it could be staying home and cruising the internet and watching hulu etc.

    Young people moving out of their parents homes was basically a post WW2 1950-1990 prosperity thing. Before that, most people married younger and lived at home till they married unless they needed to leave home for work. There's also grinder and tinder. Why waste time and money going to a bar trying to pick up a one night stand partner when one can find a willing, close by partner on the internet in less time than it takes to drive a few miles to the nearest pickup bar? The gay male bars are hardest hit. The gay men went to bars and clubs for one reason, quick sex. With the internet, no need to go to a bar.
  69. Anon[172] • Disclaimer says:
    @Travis
    by 2006 the housing boom was already forcing many young Americans to live with their parents. The growing tendency of young adults to live with parents predates the Great Recession and by 2007 was at the highest levels since World War II. Between 2000 and 2007 the number of young adults living with their parents increased 22%. From 2007 - 2015 it increased 14%

    1960 - 20% of young adults lived with parents
    1970 - 22% of young adults lived with parents
    1980 - 22% - young adults lived with parents
    1990 - 24% - young adults lived with parents
    2000 - 23% - young adults lived with parents
    2007 - 28% - young adults lived with parents
    2015 - 32% - young adults lived with parents
     
    Part of the reason is changing demographics. Another reason is fewer young Americans are getting married. In 1970 49% of young Americans (aged 18-34) were married with children. Today just 19% of young adults are married with children.

    Interesting data. Thanks.

    Back in 2007, from what I recall, lots of young people were out partying. A lot of them may have lived at home, but they had money to spend. Now they don’t.

    Unlike the current economic boom, the 2007 boom created lots of decent paying jobs for young people (such as construction). So they actually could go out.

    I think the increasing share of young people living with parents (and decreasing share marrying) is mostly related to economics. Young people, especially men, are too impoverished to move out and marry.

  70. A similar situation prevails in Dublin. I barely hear country accents anymore, but endless Southern, Eastern Europeans and now Brazilians.

  71. @Anon
    Is it possible for entire cities and towns to be gentrified vis-a-vis the capital city? For a sufficient mass of smart, industrious, innovative people, and companies, to invade a sleepy town and take it over and start good businesses?

    You'd need:

    -- Internet connectivity

    -- A location near a major highway or shipping port

    -- A bunch of people willing to start businesses to supply support services for other businesses

    -- A kernel of hepcat shops and bars and restaurants

    -- Cheap housing, cheap office space

    There must be a reason why this is impossible, since it never happens, RIP all those "Silicon [fill in the blank]"

    I read a paper on Silicon Valley, and the surprising thing was all the little services and features that you'd never think of that were critical to the areas success: small machine shops to do prototyping, rent-a-CFO people, very loose enforcement of trade secret laws and a lot of employee turnover, such that every company knew the secrets of every other company, etc.

    The housing problem is caused by 5th world immigrants living in unbelievable crowded conditions, such as 25 people in a 1000 k sq ft rowhouse. No civilized westerner can compete with that.

    You’re still thinking of the typical American family of 4-6 in a small 3 bedroom house or 2 or 3 roommates in a 2 bedroom apartment.

  72. @Rosie
    Rubbing my eyes.

    Is the Guardian actually taking an honest look at how immigration hurts natives? I can hardly believe it!

    The Guardian is more than Comment Is Free.

  73. Anon[403] • Disclaimer says:
    @The Alarmist
    When I first moved to NYC years ago, a lot of the recent grads would share with two or three friends to make the then-high rents affordable. We jokingly called one complex in the Upper East Side the Dormatories. Happy hours were a cheap way to socialise with drinks and "free" nibbles to stretch what was left of a paycheck, because you had to come up with the money for a share for the summer in the Hamptons.

    If today's kids are still living with mom and dad, it is likely because their social media addiction has turned them into a bunch of asocial sad sacks who have no intiative to get on with their lives.

    Median rent in NYC is $3000.

    That doesn’t get you downtown with the cool clubs. That gets you in a vibrant neighborhood, full of Blacks, Nuyoricans, Hasidics, and immigrants.

    The entire lifestyle portrayed in Friends would be impossible these days for a non-professional. Even if you do make a high income, you’re working all the time.

  74. @Thea
    Until recently(early to mid 20th century) young adults did not spend time with unrelated members of the opposite sex alone. Sex was not considered recreational or even an option form unmarried women until contraception . Dating and intense exposure of unrelated boys to girls demystified the opposite sex.

    Fornication is not the historic human norm aside from prostitution. In a generation this could self correct to unmarried adults staying home then increases in young fertile marriage.( the historic norm)

    The widespread sexual marketplace is a creation of the sexual revolution.

    “Fornication is not the historic human norm”

    If I recall my Napoleon Chagnon, among hunter-gatherers, raiding neighbors and raping/abducting their women is a major pastime.

    I realize this may not be exactly what you meant by “fornication”, and I agree that the late 20th century model of casual unprocreational sex is a historical anomaly and is probably not civilizationally sustainable. But I wonder if it is not the historically huge hunter-gatherer model that will replace it rather than the historically relatively brief norm of “young fertile marriage”, which was byproduct of agricultural civilization.

    The hunter-gatherer abductees are often described as “wives” in our modern parlance, but given that their “husbands” can change as the tides of tribal violence ebb and flow, I’m not sure that appellation is the most apt.

    • Replies: @Thea
    Yes I should have said willing female fornication. The costs were too high before.
  75. @Rosie
    Rubbing my eyes.

    Is the Guardian actually taking an honest look at how immigration hurts natives? I can hardly believe it!

    Notice they mentioned only Poles, though, not any non-whites.

  76. @Dave from Oz

    But finding some great programmers in Chicago proved difficult.
     
    Chicago is a city of two million people. You couldn't find a dozen people who know C (or whatever) in a city of two million?

    Chicago is a city of two million

    Three, back then.

    Also, programmers are like doctors. Worse, even. Doctors refuse to live in the Dakotas, but some are willing to brave Chicago.

    Gateway Computers in its heyday had a hell of a time getting people to come to Sioux City.

  77. “More young people are getting stuck where they grew up…”

    The horror of leaving young people where they might have children! The abomination that they might have children with those like themselves and thereby permit the legacy of Britishness to reproduce itself!

  78. @stillCARealist

    Prior to the introduction of birth control 33% of brides were pregnant on the day of their marriage.
     
    How on earth do you know that? I think it's more likely that 1/3 of brides became pregnant on their honeymoons.

    For the last 100 years the TFR has been between 2 and 4 kids.

    https://www.pbs.org/fmc/book/4family9.htm

    People know where babies come from, and they know how to prevent them if they're serious about it. My grandmother had only 2 kids and her mother had only 2 kids. They knew.

    How on earth do you know that? I think it’s more likely that 1/3 of brides became pregnant on their honeymoons.

    You can work it out by comparing marriage dates with birthdates. Out-of-wedlock birthrates have soared because men are not marrying girls they get pregnant.

    https://www.brookings.edu/research/an-analysis-of-out-of-wedlock-births-in-the-united-states/

  79. @Anon
    Is it possible for entire cities and towns to be gentrified vis-a-vis the capital city? For a sufficient mass of smart, industrious, innovative people, and companies, to invade a sleepy town and take it over and start good businesses?

    You'd need:

    -- Internet connectivity

    -- A location near a major highway or shipping port

    -- A bunch of people willing to start businesses to supply support services for other businesses

    -- A kernel of hepcat shops and bars and restaurants

    -- Cheap housing, cheap office space

    There must be a reason why this is impossible, since it never happens, RIP all those "Silicon [fill in the blank]"

    I read a paper on Silicon Valley, and the surprising thing was all the little services and features that you'd never think of that were critical to the areas success: small machine shops to do prototyping, rent-a-CFO people, very loose enforcement of trade secret laws and a lot of employee turnover, such that every company knew the secrets of every other company, etc.

    Sounds like Seattle 20 years ago. Bezos had the right idea at the time.

  80. @Travis
    Prior to the introduction of birth control 33% of brides were pregnant on the day of their marriage. But I suppose the women knew the boyfriend would be forced into marriage when she got pregnant. This was quite common from the colonial period up until the sixties.

    Prior to 1960 many "had" to marry: half of teenage brides in the fifties were pregnant at the time of their wedding. In 1960, 49% of 18- to 24-year-olds were married. Today just 7% of 18-24 year-olds are married.

    In 1960, even a college-educated woman typically earned less than a man with only a high school degree, so getting married was the best investment a woman could make in her future. And even a male high school dropout was a pretty good "catch" because rising real wages usually allowed him to earn enough to support a family within a few years of finding a steady job.

    A big reason for the rise in fornication was the introduction of birth control and the rise of feminism. Another reason falling wages of men, especially those without a college degree. Working class women can's find husbands who earn more than they do today, thus Women are less likely to get married, thus more likely to fornicate. Why waste their youth on one man when they can have fun with the alpha males not see their reputations harmed.

    This is a helpful post, but where do your statistics come from? Such statistics are worthless unless we know the source. Thanks for any guidance. – JD

  81. Anonymous[396] • Disclaimer says:

    There’s also the culture shock factor. The young scouse from Liverpool finds himself moving to what is effectively a foreign land despite the fact that he hasn’t crossed any national borders. The Pakistani(who’s moved halfway across the planet) moves in with his cousins, who help him get a job, maybe even employ him, maybe even find him a wife from the same valley back home. He can spend much of his day interacting with people who speak his own language, eat his familiar food, and existing in a culture he understands.

    In contrast, the non-whites in London view the lower class white with indifference(at best), and the upper crust British white Londoners view him as vermin.

  82. Tusk says:

    The competition of white laborer and yellow is not so simple a test of human worth as some may imagine. Under good conditions the white man can best the yellow man in turning off work. But under bad conditions the yellow man can best the white man, because he can better endure spoiled food, poor clothing, foul air, noise, heat, dirt, discomfort, and microbes. Reilly can outdo Ah-San, but Ah-San can underlive Reilly…he can live and do some work at a wage on which Reilly cannot keep himself fit to work at all, three or four Ah-Sans can take Reilly’s job from him. And they will do it, too, unless they are barred out of the market where Reilly is selling his labor. Reilly’s endeavor to exclude Ah-San from his labor market is not the case of a man dreading to pit himself on equal terms against a better man. Indeed, it is not quite so simple and selfish and narrow-minded as all that. It is a case of a man fitted to get the most out of good conditions refusing to yield his place to a weaker man able to withstand bad conditions.

    From Lothrop Stoddard’s The Rising Tide of Colour.

    Evidently this section was correct. No westerner wants to cram themselves into a small house with others, literally stepping backwards from the lifestyle they’re used to, but Indians and Chinese always live with the extended family. Anecdotally I used to live next to an Indian family that was in a two bedroom apartment, they had around 7 people who all lived there. Nobody is competitive or winning in this environment.

    • Replies: @Alden
    One thing I've noticed in Los Angeles. The hispanic immigrants live in crowded conditions only because of finances. As soon as they can afford a single family 3 bedroom home or condo they buy one and live the nuclear family life. The young people, especially the men leave home before marriage and live with roommates or alone if they can afford it which is not easy in Los Angeles. That's mostly 3rd and occasionally 2nd generation hispanics with good affirmative action government jobs.

    But the Asians, Indians, even Persians and Armenians Russians Israelis live in the same crowded conditions as they do back home. It's amazing, those 4,5000k mc mansions with 25 people living in them. Maybe that's how they can all afford to drive $70,000 cars. That's how the Chinese have taken over vast miles of San Francisco. Buy one little 2 bedroom rowhouse, set up a sweatshop in the garage and crowd 25 people in the house. Save their money and buy the next house that comes up for sale in the neighborhood. And of course the zoning and fire regulations have never ever never been enforced against the Chinese. That's why parking is so bad in many city neighborhoods. Homes and condos with 2 car garages often have at least 10 adults with cars living in them. So 8 cars need street parking.
  83. @Thea
    Until recently(early to mid 20th century) young adults did not spend time with unrelated members of the opposite sex alone. Sex was not considered recreational or even an option form unmarried women until contraception . Dating and intense exposure of unrelated boys to girls demystified the opposite sex.

    Fornication is not the historic human norm aside from prostitution. In a generation this could self correct to unmarried adults staying home then increases in young fertile marriage.( the historic norm)

    The widespread sexual marketplace is a creation of the sexual revolution.

    Depends which time frame you’re using. As another reply also implied for 90% of our species existence (before the state and before std’s) fornication was probably fairly unrestricted.

    I also wouldn’t idealize ‘traditional’ civilized societies in terms of their control on fornication. Brothels are much more common in conservative third world countries today than they are in the west, as is situational homosexuality.

  84. @anon
    I believe Murray Hill somewhat infamously served the recent-college-grad-ghetto niche this decade.

    To everyone who believes the younger generation is too overtly antagonistic toward Boomers or Gen X, I offer that 2nd paragraph into evidence as Exhibit A.

    “To everyone who believes the younger generation is too overtly antagonistic toward Boomers or Gen X, I offer that 2nd paragraph into evidence as Exhibit A.”

    Actually, my second statement would be Exhibit A for a case of Boomer antipathy for the younger generations.

    The point is that it is pretty gutless to hole up in your parents’ house because your standard of living might suffer for a year or two, and I attribute much of that to the Social Media generations seeing how all their friends’ lives as portrayed online and would rather die alone than move in with a friend or two and reveal just how luxurious their lives really aren’t.

    I can’t wait to see this crowd hit the shores at Nampo, Bandar Abbas, or Caracas

    • Replies: @Alden
    The boomer generation are not the parents of the under 20- 30 group. They are the grandparents of that age cohort.
  85. @The Alarmist
    When I first moved to NYC years ago, a lot of the recent grads would share with two or three friends to make the then-high rents affordable. We jokingly called one complex in the Upper East Side the Dormatories. Happy hours were a cheap way to socialise with drinks and "free" nibbles to stretch what was left of a paycheck, because you had to come up with the money for a share for the summer in the Hamptons.

    If today's kids are still living with mom and dad, it is likely because their social media addiction has turned them into a bunch of asocial sad sacks who have no intiative to get on with their lives.

    Co living developments are a theme these days, basically university residences for the young.

  86. Anonymous[300] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon
    Is it possible for entire cities and towns to be gentrified vis-a-vis the capital city? For a sufficient mass of smart, industrious, innovative people, and companies, to invade a sleepy town and take it over and start good businesses?

    You'd need:

    -- Internet connectivity

    -- A location near a major highway or shipping port

    -- A bunch of people willing to start businesses to supply support services for other businesses

    -- A kernel of hepcat shops and bars and restaurants

    -- Cheap housing, cheap office space

    There must be a reason why this is impossible, since it never happens, RIP all those "Silicon [fill in the blank]"

    I read a paper on Silicon Valley, and the surprising thing was all the little services and features that you'd never think of that were critical to the areas success: small machine shops to do prototyping, rent-a-CFO people, very loose enforcement of trade secret laws and a lot of employee turnover, such that every company knew the secrets of every other company, etc.

    Could you link the paper?

  87. Anonymous[300] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon
    Is it possible for entire cities and towns to be gentrified vis-a-vis the capital city? For a sufficient mass of smart, industrious, innovative people, and companies, to invade a sleepy town and take it over and start good businesses?

    You'd need:

    -- Internet connectivity

    -- A location near a major highway or shipping port

    -- A bunch of people willing to start businesses to supply support services for other businesses

    -- A kernel of hepcat shops and bars and restaurants

    -- Cheap housing, cheap office space

    There must be a reason why this is impossible, since it never happens, RIP all those "Silicon [fill in the blank]"

    I read a paper on Silicon Valley, and the surprising thing was all the little services and features that you'd never think of that were critical to the areas success: small machine shops to do prototyping, rent-a-CFO people, very loose enforcement of trade secret laws and a lot of employee turnover, such that every company knew the secrets of every other company, etc.

    Could you link the pape?

  88. @Travis
    Prior to the introduction of birth control 33% of brides were pregnant on the day of their marriage. But I suppose the women knew the boyfriend would be forced into marriage when she got pregnant. This was quite common from the colonial period up until the sixties.

    Prior to 1960 many "had" to marry: half of teenage brides in the fifties were pregnant at the time of their wedding. In 1960, 49% of 18- to 24-year-olds were married. Today just 7% of 18-24 year-olds are married.

    In 1960, even a college-educated woman typically earned less than a man with only a high school degree, so getting married was the best investment a woman could make in her future. And even a male high school dropout was a pretty good "catch" because rising real wages usually allowed him to earn enough to support a family within a few years of finding a steady job.

    A big reason for the rise in fornication was the introduction of birth control and the rise of feminism. Another reason falling wages of men, especially those without a college degree. Working class women can's find husbands who earn more than they do today, thus Women are less likely to get married, thus more likely to fornicate. Why waste their youth on one man when they can have fun with the alpha males not see their reputations harmed.

    Yes I’ve read that but they we were often betrothed ( not engaged, a more formal relationship we no longer recognize)already. It wasn’t two randomly promiscuous people with no ties to each other forced to marry after one night of fun.

    • LOL: Alden
    • Replies: @Travis
    In the fifties the median age of first marriages was 20 for females. Half of the teenage brides were pregnant at the time of their marriage, thus one in 4 women began their families as pregnant teenagers. Due to the prevalence of shotgun marriages , few babies were born out-of wedlock. Only 15% of teen births were out-of-wedlock during the fifties. In the eighties 60% of teen births were out of wedlock. Today teen pregnancies are so rare it is no longer a topic of concern.

    these teenage girls were not "betrothed" in the 50s. Some of them may have been engaged, but the evidence suggests many were not engaged until they discovered the pregnancy. Parents encouraged their daughters to marry their boyfriend when they got pregnant. One reason they encouraged marriage, it was relatively easy for a high school graduate to obtain a decent job and support his wife without getting a college degree. My father was in high school in the 50s and a third of his friends were forced to get married when their girlfriends got pregnant. Two of my uncles had shotgun marriages in the early sixties. One of my aunts had a shotgun marriage in 1960, another aunt was married at 18 to her high school sweetheart. This was quite common when the average girl was married at 20. Another real problem in the 50s was fake pregnancies to get guys to marry them.

    in the eighties 2 of my cousins got pregnant in high school and 3 girls from my neighborhood, none of them were pressured to get married, in fact they were encouraged to stay single. Shotgun marriages became very rare after they legalized abortion. It was easier for the guy to walk away and less stigma for the women to have a bastard. https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1013&context=sociology_papers
  89. @Almost Missouri

    "Fornication is not the historic human norm"
     
    If I recall my Napoleon Chagnon, among hunter-gatherers, raiding neighbors and raping/abducting their women is a major pastime.

    I realize this may not be exactly what you meant by "fornication", and I agree that the late 20th century model of casual unprocreational sex is a historical anomaly and is probably not civilizationally sustainable. But I wonder if it is not the historically huge hunter-gatherer model that will replace it rather than the historically relatively brief norm of "young fertile marriage", which was byproduct of agricultural civilization.

    The hunter-gatherer abductees are often described as "wives" in our modern parlance, but given that their "husbands" can change as the tides of tribal violence ebb and flow, I'm not sure that appellation is the most apt.

    Yes I should have said willing female fornication. The costs were too high before.

  90. @inselaffen
    it's far nicer in my small(ish) town anyway.

    Bingo.

    Somewhere along the way the Brain Drain slowed way down, and not just because of the rents. If the Babe Drain follows then who knows what could happen. Local nurses are definitely younger and better looking this go round.

  91. @Anon
    Prosperity was one of the enablers of the sexual revolution.

    When a young man has his own place and money to spend, chasing women is very doable and very fun. This is especially true when low rents make it affordable for nightlife entrepreneurs to set up venues (and affordable for young men to live near those cool nightlife districts).

    When a young man lives with his mommy and has minimal money to spend, girls think he's a "loser" and don't want to hang out with him. So no fornication for him.

    When high rents force nightlife venues to close down and make it harder for young people to live in the "hip" part of the city, even successful young men get their sex lives ruined.

    I think we are gradually returning to the norms of previous times. I think over the coming decades, sexual conservatism will become the new norm.

    While I don't see a return to high fertility (too expensive), I do see a return to a situation in which young men will have to prove their financial worth before acquiring a regular relationship/sex partner. Given the difficulty of establishing one's self financially these days, young men will get hit the hardest by this.

    The era of casual youth dating is gradually coming to an end.

    I’ve seen a lot of articles about how bars, clubs and dance clubs are closing more and more because they have no customers. It could be money, it could be staying home and cruising the internet and watching hulu etc.

    Young people moving out of their parents homes was basically a post WW2 1950-1990 prosperity thing. Before that, most people married younger and lived at home till they married unless they needed to leave home for work. There’s also grinder and tinder. Why waste time and money going to a bar trying to pick up a one night stand partner when one can find a willing, close by partner on the internet in less time than it takes to drive a few miles to the nearest pickup bar? The gay male bars are hardest hit. The gay men went to bars and clubs for one reason, quick sex. With the internet, no need to go to a bar.

  92. @The Alarmist

    "To everyone who believes the younger generation is too overtly antagonistic toward Boomers or Gen X, I offer that 2nd paragraph into evidence as Exhibit A."
     
    Actually, my second statement would be Exhibit A for a case of Boomer antipathy for the younger generations.

    The point is that it is pretty gutless to hole up in your parents' house because your standard of living might suffer for a year or two, and I attribute much of that to the Social Media generations seeing how all their friends' lives as portrayed online and would rather die alone than move in with a friend or two and reveal just how luxurious their lives really aren't.

    I can't wait to see this crowd hit the shores at Nampo, Bandar Abbas, or Caracas

    The boomer generation are not the parents of the under 20- 30 group. They are the grandparents of that age cohort.

  93. @Tusk

    The competition of white laborer and yellow is not so simple a test of human worth as some may imagine. Under good conditions the white man can best the yellow man in turning off work. But under bad conditions the yellow man can best the white man, because he can better endure spoiled food, poor clothing, foul air, noise, heat, dirt, discomfort, and microbes. Reilly can outdo Ah-San, but Ah-San can underlive Reilly...he can live and do some work at a wage on which Reilly cannot keep himself fit to work at all, three or four Ah-Sans can take Reilly’s job from him. And they will do it, too, unless they are barred out of the market where Reilly is selling his labor. Reilly’s endeavor to exclude Ah-San from his labor market is not the case of a man dreading to pit himself on equal terms against a better man. Indeed, it is not quite so simple and selfish and narrow-minded as all that. It is a case of a man fitted to get the most out of good conditions refusing to yield his place to a weaker man able to withstand bad conditions.
     
    From Lothrop Stoddard's The Rising Tide of Colour.

    Evidently this section was correct. No westerner wants to cram themselves into a small house with others, literally stepping backwards from the lifestyle they're used to, but Indians and Chinese always live with the extended family. Anecdotally I used to live next to an Indian family that was in a two bedroom apartment, they had around 7 people who all lived there. Nobody is competitive or winning in this environment.

    One thing I’ve noticed in Los Angeles. The hispanic immigrants live in crowded conditions only because of finances. As soon as they can afford a single family 3 bedroom home or condo they buy one and live the nuclear family life. The young people, especially the men leave home before marriage and live with roommates or alone if they can afford it which is not easy in Los Angeles. That’s mostly 3rd and occasionally 2nd generation hispanics with good affirmative action government jobs.

    But the Asians, Indians, even Persians and Armenians Russians Israelis live in the same crowded conditions as they do back home. It’s amazing, those 4,5000k mc mansions with 25 people living in them. Maybe that’s how they can all afford to drive $70,000 cars. That’s how the Chinese have taken over vast miles of San Francisco. Buy one little 2 bedroom rowhouse, set up a sweatshop in the garage and crowd 25 people in the house. Save their money and buy the next house that comes up for sale in the neighborhood. And of course the zoning and fire regulations have never ever never been enforced against the Chinese. That’s why parking is so bad in many city neighborhoods. Homes and condos with 2 car garages often have at least 10 adults with cars living in them. So 8 cars need street parking.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Mexicans don't really like other Mexicans, so as soon as they can afford it, they take to American suburban sprawl of single family homes, with maybe one nephew from Mexico sleeping on the couch. That's one reason Mexicans are getting squeezed out of Los Angeles: they can't afford to live like they want.

    But a lot of the New People in Los Angeles don't mind crowding an extended family into a fancy house.

  94. @stillCARealist

    Prior to the introduction of birth control 33% of brides were pregnant on the day of their marriage.
     
    How on earth do you know that? I think it's more likely that 1/3 of brides became pregnant on their honeymoons.

    For the last 100 years the TFR has been between 2 and 4 kids.

    https://www.pbs.org/fmc/book/4family9.htm

    People know where babies come from, and they know how to prevent them if they're serious about it. My grandmother had only 2 kids and her mother had only 2 kids. They knew.

    There are extensive records. In England they go back to the 1300’s. Remember, every little Christian church kept the birth,marriage, death and often other records, long before they were kept in government offices. Numerous historians have looked at those records in America and Europe and see the same thing over and over again. Marriage in March, first baby born in July. It’s well known among American and European historians.

  95. @Thea
    Yes I’ve read that but they we were often betrothed ( not engaged, a more formal relationship we no longer recognize)already. It wasn’t two randomly promiscuous people with no ties to each other forced to marry after one night of fun.

    In the fifties the median age of first marriages was 20 for females. Half of the teenage brides were pregnant at the time of their marriage, thus one in 4 women began their families as pregnant teenagers. Due to the prevalence of shotgun marriages , few babies were born out-of wedlock. Only 15% of teen births were out-of-wedlock during the fifties. In the eighties 60% of teen births were out of wedlock. Today teen pregnancies are so rare it is no longer a topic of concern.

    these teenage girls were not “betrothed” in the 50s. Some of them may have been engaged, but the evidence suggests many were not engaged until they discovered the pregnancy. Parents encouraged their daughters to marry their boyfriend when they got pregnant. One reason they encouraged marriage, it was relatively easy for a high school graduate to obtain a decent job and support his wife without getting a college degree. My father was in high school in the 50s and a third of his friends were forced to get married when their girlfriends got pregnant. Two of my uncles had shotgun marriages in the early sixties. One of my aunts had a shotgun marriage in 1960, another aunt was married at 18 to her high school sweetheart. This was quite common when the average girl was married at 20. Another real problem in the 50s was fake pregnancies to get guys to marry them.

    in the eighties 2 of my cousins got pregnant in high school and 3 girls from my neighborhood, none of them were pressured to get married, in fact they were encouraged to stay single. Shotgun marriages became very rare after they legalized abortion. It was easier for the guy to walk away and less stigma for the women to have a bastard. https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1013&context=sociology_papers

  96. @anon
    I believe Murray Hill somewhat infamously served the recent-college-grad-ghetto niche this decade.

    To everyone who believes the younger generation is too overtly antagonistic toward Boomers or Gen X, I offer that 2nd paragraph into evidence as Exhibit A.

    The boomer generation are the grandparents, not the parents of the 20 to 30 age group.

  97. @Rosie

    Working class women can’s find husbands who earn more than they do today, thus Women are less likely to get married, thus more likely to fornicate. Why waste their youth on one man when they can have fun with the alpha males not see their reputations harmed.
     
    You are assuming it is women, rather than men, who resist marriage. There is no evidence for this assertion.

    Another 60 year old male virgin chimes in with his hatred of the women who’ve rejected him for the last 45 years. It’s so obvious which male commenters on this site ain’t getting any.

  98. @Expletive Deleted

    plenty of cheap places to live out in rural Sussex close to a train station.
     
    Aaaahahhahhaaaaaaa! It's the way you tell 'em. Anyway unless you get on at Brighton you won't get a seat. Or even on the train. And you wouldn't be able to afford rents or mortgages in Brighton, particularly after paying £3352 p.a. for the SR season ticket.
    Why not have a mooch around Rightmove, to see how "cheap" even a 1-bedder in some ex-council commieblock is down there? That's why the Londonistas are gagging for the HS2 rail project, expanding their commutery buying power all the way to Brum and even bloody Leeds. Causing the abandoned proles of the Former Industrial Zone up there to be priced completely out of even shelter.

    Oh oh. I’m a liar and a fool. You can snap up a bijou detatched residence in Bognor for the price of a used van. And it’s only a mile from the station, 2hrs to Victoria, god knows how long back. A complete doss.
    https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-47169324.html

  99. @Alden
    One thing I've noticed in Los Angeles. The hispanic immigrants live in crowded conditions only because of finances. As soon as they can afford a single family 3 bedroom home or condo they buy one and live the nuclear family life. The young people, especially the men leave home before marriage and live with roommates or alone if they can afford it which is not easy in Los Angeles. That's mostly 3rd and occasionally 2nd generation hispanics with good affirmative action government jobs.

    But the Asians, Indians, even Persians and Armenians Russians Israelis live in the same crowded conditions as they do back home. It's amazing, those 4,5000k mc mansions with 25 people living in them. Maybe that's how they can all afford to drive $70,000 cars. That's how the Chinese have taken over vast miles of San Francisco. Buy one little 2 bedroom rowhouse, set up a sweatshop in the garage and crowd 25 people in the house. Save their money and buy the next house that comes up for sale in the neighborhood. And of course the zoning and fire regulations have never ever never been enforced against the Chinese. That's why parking is so bad in many city neighborhoods. Homes and condos with 2 car garages often have at least 10 adults with cars living in them. So 8 cars need street parking.

    Mexicans don’t really like other Mexicans, so as soon as they can afford it, they take to American suburban sprawl of single family homes, with maybe one nephew from Mexico sleeping on the couch. That’s one reason Mexicans are getting squeezed out of Los Angeles: they can’t afford to live like they want.

    But a lot of the New People in Los Angeles don’t mind crowding an extended family into a fancy house.

  100. @Anon
    You seem to have forgotten John Major, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, David Cameron, and Theresa May.

    No, I haven’t. Their being Boomers is irrelevant.

  101. @The Alarmist
    When I first moved to NYC years ago, a lot of the recent grads would share with two or three friends to make the then-high rents affordable. We jokingly called one complex in the Upper East Side the Dormatories. Happy hours were a cheap way to socialise with drinks and "free" nibbles to stretch what was left of a paycheck, because you had to come up with the money for a share for the summer in the Hamptons.

    If today's kids are still living with mom and dad, it is likely because their social media addiction has turned them into a bunch of asocial sad sacks who have no intiative to get on with their lives.

    When I first moved to NYC years ago, a lot of the recent grads would share with two or three friends to make the then-high rents affordable. We jokingly called one complex in the Upper East Side the Dormatories.

    When I lived in Manhattan (sharing a two-BR with three of my college classmates), the nearby Normandy Court at 95th and Second was popularly known as Dormandy Court.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Which superpower is more threatened by its “extractive elites”?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?