US birth rate hits record low, housing costs weigh on family planning

The U.S. birth rate fell to an historic low in 2024, continuing a nearly two-decade decline that researchers say is shaped in part by rising housing costs.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that the national fertility rate dropped below 1.6 children per woman last year.

The replacement level — or rate needed to sustain the population — is 2.1, a rate the U.S. met roughly two decades ago.

The decline reflects broader social and economic shifts, including delayed marriage and parenthood. But economists and demographers cited in a Realtor.com report point to housing costs as a significant factor.

Home prices outpace wages

“Larger homes that can comfortably accommodate multiple children have become increasingly out of reach for many families,” Hannah Jones, senior economic research analyst at Realtor.com, said in the report. “As prices have far outpaced wage growth, couples may delay homeownership or remain in smaller homes longer, limiting the space available for growing families.”

Median home prices have surged far beyond inflation. In 2006, a single-family home sold for $221,923 on average — equivalent to about $343,806 in today’s dollars.

By 2024, the median price had climbed to $410,100. Over that same span, the fertility rate slid from 2.1 to under 1.6 births per woman.

Research links housing costs to births

A 2012 paper by the National Bureau of Economic Research found a direct link between housing costs and family size.

Economists Lisa Dettling and Melissa Schettini Kearney concluded that a 10% rise in home prices reduces births among non-homeowners by 1% in the average metro area.

Their study examined fertility rates of women ages 20 to 44 across 66 metro areas between 1990 and 2006 — a period when home prices climbed steadily while birth rates remained flat.

The researchers argued that housing represents the single largest cost in raising children, outweighing food, child care and education.

Higher home prices, they wrote, discourage non-homeowners from starting or expanding families.

Conversely, existing homeowners often benefit — using increased equity to support child-related expenses or deciding to have children sooner.

Jones said today’s housing market creates pressure on both sides.

“For prospective parents, the financial stress of competing for scarce, expensive housing can make the prospect of having additional offspring seem less feasible or even risky,” she said.

Housing cycles, geography

Still, housing is not the only driver.

Periods exist when both home prices and birth rates have risen. In the early 2000s, expanding credit and economic growth made larger homes more attainable — and many families had children despite climbing prices.

But the 2008 financial crisis pushed both housing and fertility down, according to the report.

“The housing bust and Great Recession not only reduced home values but also pushed up unemployment, delaying or derailing the plans of families hoping to buy homes and have children,” Jones said.

Since 2012, home prices have rebounded, but the birth rate has kept falling. Researchers suggest the gap reflects both tighter supply and broader cultural changes — including women delaying childbirth to pursue education and careers.

Geography also matters.

A study by UCLA geography professor William A. V. Clark found that women in costly markets, such as New York and Boston, delay their first child by three to four years.

Clark noted that these regions also have more highly educated women, further pushing back family formation.

Response and outlook

The record-low fertility rate has drawn attention from policymakers.

The Associated Press reported that the Trump administration issued an executive order expanding access to in vitro fertilization and floated “baby bonuses” to encourage more births.

But some researchers say the downturn should not be seen as a crisis.

“We’re seeing this as part of an ongoing process of fertility delay,” said Leslie Root, a University of Colorado Boulder researcher studying fertility and population policy. “We know that the U.S. population is still growing, and we still have a natural increase — more births than deaths.”