U.S. birth rate hits all-time low as housing costs rise, study links affordability to family formation

The U.S. birth rate fell to an all-time low in 2024, the latest sign of a long-running trend tied to housing affordability and economic conditions. New data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show the nation’s total fertility rate dipping to fewer than 1.6 births per woman, down from about 2.1 births per woman in 2006. Experts note that the drop comes after two decades in which many women delayed childbearing or chose not to have children at all, with housing costs repeatedly cited as a key constraint alongside other factors.

Data analyzed by Realtor.com economists illustrate how housing costs have diverged from wage growth over the 18-year span from 2006 to 2024. In 2006, the median price of a single-family home was $221,923, which translates to roughly $343,806 in 2024 dollars when adjusted for inflation. By 2024, the median sale price hovered around $410,100—more than $66,000 higher in real terms than the 2006 equivalent. During that period, the total fertility rate fell from about 2.1 births per woman to just under 1.6. Realtor.com senior economic research analyst Hannah Jones said larger homes that can accommodate multiple children have become increasingly out of reach as prices have outpaced wage growth, prompting couples to delay homeownership or remain in smaller homes longer, limiting space for growing families.

From the early data to today, the relationship between housing costs and family planning has been a focus of research. A 2012 study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research examined fertility across 66 metropolitan areas from 1990 to 2006. The authors, Lisa Dettling and Melissa Schettini Kearney, found that a 10% rise in home prices was associated with about a 1% decline in births among non-homeowners. The paper emphasized that rising housing prices tend to exert downward pressure on birth rates because housing represents the largest expense associated with raising a child, far surpassing food, child care, and education. It also noted that price changes in the housing market can be more influential than unemployment in shaping fertility decisions.

For prospective parents, the financial strain of competing for scarce, expensive housing can make the prospect of having another child seem less feasible or even risky. Yet the research also points to a countervailing dynamic: for existing homeowners, rising home prices can boost wealth and potentially accelerate family formation. The study suggested that homeowners’ rising equity could help finance child-related expenses and, in some cases, prompt them to have children sooner or to have more of them.

Other studies and experts emphasize that housing is one factor among many shaping fertility. In the 2000s, a period when credit expansion and economic growth made larger homes more attainable, some families welcomed more children even as prices rose. After the housing bust and the Great Recession (2008–2011), both home prices and unemployment declined, further delaying family plans. Since 2012, prices have risen again even as birth rates have continued their downward trajectory, underscoring that affordability barriers remain a central constraint for expanding families. As Jones notes, housing is a powerful, structural factor in today’s economy, though it is not the sole cause of falling birth rates.

Geography also matters. UCLA geography expert William A. V. Clark has shown that women in expensive housing markets such as New York City or Boston tend to delay having their first child by three to four years. He argues that higher costs, coupled with the presence of more women pursuing advanced degrees, contribute to delayed motherhood; however, he cautions that there is not yet evidence that expensive markets experience lower completed fertility — the total number of children eventually born by a woman. In other words, expensive markets may delay parenthood, but many women still realize their fertility goals over time.

In Washington this year, policymakers considered how to respond to the ongoing fertility slowdown. One notable move cited by The Associated Press was an executive order aimed at expanding access to in vitro fertilization and exploring “baby bonuses” as a means of encouraging larger families. Yet some researchers say such measures do not address the core constraint highlighted by the data: housing affordability. Dr. Leslie Root, a fertility and population policy researcher at the University of Colorado Boulder, emphasized that the current pattern reflects a process of fertility delay rather than an abrupt decline, pointing out that the U.S. population is still growing through natural increase and migration. “We’re seeing this as part of an ongoing process of fertility delay. We know that the U.S. population is still growing, and we still have a natural increase—more births than deaths,” she told The Associated Press. The consensus among researchers is that the trend is unlikely to reverse quickly, given persistent economic and housing-market headwinds.

Looking ahead, analysts say the trajectory will likely hinge on broader economic conditions and, crucially, on housing policy. If housing costs continue to outpace incomes and supply remains tight, the decision to start or expand a family may remain constrained for many households. Conversely, if wage growth strengthens and homes become more affordable, some of the deferred births could eventually occur, potentially stabilizing or modestly lifting fertility rates. Until then, experts say the housing market will remain a central factor shaping American family formation.

The broader context is that the United States continues to experience a population dynamic characterized by delayed marriage and childbearing, especially among younger adults facing economic anxiety and higher living costs. The CDC’s 2024 data release reinforces the need to consider housing affordability as a public policy issue alongside wages, childcare, and healthcare access in discussions about the country’s long-term growth and demographic stability. As researchers and policymakers weigh options, the data underscore that stabilizing or expanding family formation will require solutions that relieve the financial burden of housing and support families across generations.

The pattern of declining birth rates amid rising housing costs is not a simple story of a single policy or economic shock. Rather, it reflects a complex balancing act among workers’ desire for stable careers, the cost of raising children, and the availability of housing that families can realistically afford. As the population continues to age and the country explores fertility incentives, the housing market’s affordability will likely remain a barometer of the broader willingness and ability of Americans to form new families in the years ahead.