T
he United States recorded its lowest birth rate ever in 2024, a trend that has been steadily declining for about two decades. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released updated figures this summer showing the national fertility rate fell to under 1.6 children per woman, a sharp drop from the 2.1 rate in 2006 that is needed to keep the population stable. Rising housing costs are frequently cited as a key driver of this decline, as more women postpone or forgo motherhood.
Realtor.com economists traced the financial strain of homeownership over the past 18 years. In 2006 the median price of a single‑family home was $221,923, which would be roughly $343,806 in 2024 dollars after inflation. By 2024 the median sale price had climbed to $410,100—over $66,000 higher in real terms than the 2006 equivalent. During the same period, the U.S. total fertility rate slipped from about 2.1 births per woman to just under 1.6, underscoring a strong correlation between housing affordability and family planning.
Senior economic research analyst Hannah Jones of Realtor.com notes that larger homes capable of accommodating multiple children have become increasingly out of reach. As prices have outpaced wage growth, many couples delay purchasing a home or remain in smaller dwellings, limiting space for expanding families. A 2012 National Bureau of Economic Research study, “House Prices and Birth Rates,” found that a 10% rise in home prices led to a 1% decline in births among non‑homeowners in a typical metro area. The authors—Lisa Dettling and Melissa Schettini Kearney—examined fertility rates of women aged 20‑44 across 66 metros from 1990 to 2006, a period when birth rates stayed flat while median home prices rose steadily. They argued that housing represents the largest single expense of raising a child, so higher prices raise the overall cost of childrearing and push couples to delay or reduce family size. The study also concluded that changes in house prices have a greater impact on birth rates than unemployment fluctuations.
Jones adds that the financial pressure of competing for scarce, expensive housing can make the idea of additional children seem risky or unfeasible. Conversely, for existing homeowners, rising property values can spur a baby boom. Home equity constitutes a large portion of household wealth, so as prices climb, homeowners’ net worth grows, potentially encouraging earlier and larger families. Equity can also be tapped to cover child‑related expenses such as schooling.
Housing costs are not the sole factor influencing fertility. The early 2000s saw expanding credit and economic growth that made larger homes more attainable, leading many Americans to welcome more children even as prices rose. However, the 2008‑2011 housing bust and Great Recession reduced home values and increased unemployment, delaying or derailing family plans. After 2012, home prices rebounded while birth rates continued to fall, indicating that higher costs and tighter supply in the post‑recession market have become a persistent barrier to childbearing. Jones summarizes that the rising hurdle of buying a larger home has forced many to postpone or limit family size, reinforcing the downward trend in U.S. birth rates. She cautions that while housing is not the sole cause, it is a significant structural constraint in today’s economy.
Geography also shapes fertility decisions. A 2012 study by UCLA geography professor William A. V. Clark found that women in expensive metros such as New York City or Boston delay their first child by three to four years. Clark attributes this to a higher concentration of women with advanced degrees who prioritize career development, which delays motherhood. He notes that although first‑birth timing is postponed, women in high‑cost markets eventually complete their fertility expectations, so overall child numbers may not differ dramatically from more affordable regions.
The record low fertility rate of under 1.6 children per woman sparked concern in Washington, D.C. President Donald Trump’s administration issued an executive order to expand access to in‑vitro fertilization and considered “baby bonuses” to encourage higher birth rates, according to The Associated Press. Yet University of Colorado Boulder researcher Leslie Root argues that the trend reflects a broader, ongoing shift toward delayed fertility. She points out that the U.S. population is still growing, with a natural increase of births over deaths. Root emphasizes that Americans are marrying later and women are waiting longer to conceive due to financial worries and economic uncertainty, and that this pattern is unlikely to reverse in the near future.
