The number of young children in America’s largest cities is “rapidly shrinking” at a rate so alarming that even progressive urbanites are concerned. In a new analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau, Economic Innovation Group researcher Connor O’Brien found that the number of children aged 0-4 has dropped 18% in New York City, 15% in Cook County, Ill. (Chicago), and 14% in Los Angeles County in just three years since COVID.
“Progressives do have a family problem,” admitted Derek Thompson, a progressive writer writing to a largely progressive audience in The Atlantic. “The steady march of the childless city is … the result of urban policy, conceived by, written by, and enacted by liberals.”
An ‘Urban Family Exodus’
The precipitous disappearance of young children — and, relatedly, young families — in urban centers is not entirely “the result of past COVID waves” or “declining nationwide birth rates,” Thompson continued. The nationwide 0-4 population decreased 2.3% from 2020 to 2021, 1.0% from 2021 to 2022, and 0.8% from 2022 to 2023 (for a three-year decline of 4.1%). But the 0-4 population in large urban counties decreased 3.9% from 2020-2021, 2.2% from 2021-2022, and 1.5% from 2022-2023 (for a three-year decline of 7.6%).
“The under-five population is still declining twice as fast in large urban counties as it is elsewhere,” said Thompson. “Even at the slower rate of out-migration since [the height of COVID], several counties — including those encompassing Manhattan, Brooklyn, Chicago, Los Angeles, and San Francisco — are on pace to lose 50% of their under-five population in 20 years.”
Indeed, O’Brien’s analysis points to an “urban family exodus.” While 0-4 populations fell from 2020-2023 in mid-sized urban (-2.9%), small urban (-3.4%), and suburban counties (-2.8%), as well as counties classified as metro rural (-0.4%) and nonmetro rural (-3.1%), they dropped fastest in large urban counties (-7.6%). The only type of county where the under-five population grew from 2020 to 2023 was in exurban counties (+2.0%), six percentage points above the national average.
This break in the downward trend suggests a counteracting factor — that families are moving out of large urban centers to the “exurbs.” (“Exurban” counties lie outside the “suburbs”; they are semi-rural but close enough for commuters to reach a metropolitan center.)
The Trend Is Real
The “urban family exodus” is a real trend, not just a right-wing talking point. O’Brien foresaw a “family-exodus doom loop” not as a segue into a culture-war argument but rather as a trend that could imperil “mundane amenities families care about,” such as better schools and local playgrounds, which will now decline in importance in local politics. So undeniable is this trend that Thompson, a self-described progressive, admitted that it “says something … damning about the state of American cities and the progressives who govern them.”
“America’s richest cities are profoundly left-leaning, and many of them — including New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco — are themselves ensconced in left-leaning states,” Thompson reflected. “These places ought to be advertisements for what the modern progressive movement can achieve without meddlesome conservatism getting in the way, at the local or state level.”
“If progressives want to sell their cause to the masses, they should be able to say: Elect us, and we’ll make America more like Oakland. Or Brooklyn. Or suburban Detroit. If they can’t make that argument, that’s a problem,” he added. “Right now it’s hard to make the argument.”
Thompson’s progressive faith is “the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1). A conservative, or merely a pragmatist, might counter that the failure of progressive urban policy to produce the promised utopia should lead urban policymakers to abandon ideological policies for those which are proven to work. More fundamentally, however, counteracting the decline in urban families requires an accurate diagnosis of the factors that are causing it.
Diagnosing the Problem
O’Brien’s analysis highlights two major factors contributing to the precipitous urban decline of children under five (and young families). First, large cities are leading the nationwide trend of declining birth rates, with birth rates declining 1.0% in large cities since 2010-2011, compared to 0.9% in mid-sized and small cities, 0.7% in suburbs and exurbs, and 0.5% in rural areas. Second, as suggested above, families with young children are moving out of large urban centers, especially for the exurbs. Let’s consider these factors in reverse order.
Large cities are pursuing policies that cause families to leave. Two major concerns for families with small children — more so than for many singles or couples without children — are safety and affordability. Small children are less able to care for themselves, and parents naturally seek to keep their children out of harm’s way. Small children also prompt their families to need more food, housing space, and car space, not to mention baby-specific needs like diapers, booster seats, and childcare — all of which strain the budget.
Over the past decade, well-funded left-wing ideologues have revolutionized local prosecutor offices, refusing to prosecute some crimes (or back the police) in the name of equality. As a result, the unsupported police will not even arrest for crimes when they know the prosecutor will simply dismiss the charges. Predictably, cities which stopped punishing bad things like shoplifting, open-air drug markets, and rioting got more of these things. A particularly lax approach to punishing minors encouraged the creation of underage gangs that have conducted organized smash-and-grabs and armed carjacking. This deliberate policy choice by local, progressive prosecutors caused violent crime to skyrocket, making the city less safe for families.
Mothers with strollers do not appreciate homeless encampments on the sidewalks, drug sales at the playground, and organized smash-and-grabs at the corner market.
Large, progressive cities also pursue policies that increase costs for families. They fund generous welfare systems through high taxes. They hinder housing construction, often without meaning to, through rent control, expensive permit processes, and labor restrictions. Thompson noted that the housing supply in red-state cities (Austin, Raleigh, Phoenix) is expected to expand five times faster than that of blue-state cities (San Diego, Baltimore, San Francisco). He also noted that housing policy “is the quantum field of urban life, extending across every sector.” Since every worker has to pay for housing, an expensive housing market drives up wages, which drives up the cost of nearly everything — from McDonald’s to gas prices to (especially) childcare.
Families can survive high taxes, expensive housing, and ghastly childcare costs, but such factors do increase the appeal of moving further away.
Large cities are promoting preferences that discourage family creation. Professor Carl Trueman describes a revolutionary philosophical shift in the post-modern world in which people tend to define their identity in reference to themselves, rather than to outward-facing relationships. We tend to imagine that “everybody is ultimately defined by an inner core of feelings that they have, and authenticity is found by being able to express those feelings outwardly,” he said. This new view, which has been described as “expressive individualism,” applies the philosophy of the 19th-century German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, “If God is dead, then we’ve effectively made ourselves gods. It’s for us to create meaning.”
This worldview shift has prompted many to challenge the generations-old assumption that the primary goals of young adulthood included finding a spouse, settling down, and starting a family. While not everyone has abandoned this ideal, it now competes with many conflicting theories of how young people (especially young women) should employ their years of youthful vigor. Many young adults now give themselves to a career, extensive travel, or other hobbies to which parenthood would be a major hindrance. Even if they desire to have children eventually, they often postpone parenthood until they find fulfillment elsewhere.
This expressive-individualistic trend should lead us to universal judgments (for instance, some childless couples desire kids but struggle with infertility), but it is widespread. So widespread is this worldview, in fact, that it is responsible for much of the dramatic decline in U.S. birthrates, as many women choose to give birth later in life, to fewer children, or not at all.
Expressive individualism is not confined to cities, as evidenced by America’s nationwide decline in birthrates. But it likely has a greater impact on birthrates in cities simply because it offers more exciting alternatives to settling down and starting a family. A young, single person living in a large city can enjoy the nightlife, the restaurant scene, easily accessible travel opportunities, and countless opportunities for companionship with other young singles engaged in the same pursuits. For a young, single person who doesn’t live in a city, the nightlife is high school football, the restaurant scene is the local diner, and the nearest airport is an hours-long drive away; alternatives to family life are much less enticing. A young, single person in, say, a studio apartment can also fund these big-city enjoyments better than a similarly situated young person with a spouse and young children.
Many of these cultural trends would hold true whether or not local governments took any actions at all. But local governments in large cities often double down on encouraging young singles to remain childless, while discouraging them from settling down and starting families. They fork over large sums of money for exciting nightlife attractions: sporting arenas, concert halls, live-music bars, and comedy clubs, which are most active after kids’ bedtimes. Many progressive cities also spend large sums of money discouraging the use of personal automobiles: removing or shrinking parking lots, replacing automobile lanes with bus or bike lanes, and raising taxes on cars or fuel.
Where Young Families Stay
Whatever the causes, the fact remains that progressive urban leaders “currently preside over counties that young families are leaving,” Thompson admitted. “They should pride themselves instead on building places where those same families would want to stay.”
There are places where families are growing (or moving to). According to O’Brien’s county-level data, calling these places “exurbs” is an oversimplification. Boise County, Idaho (urban) has 29.2% more children aged 0-4 than in 2020, while Tensas Parish, La. (rural) has 32.0% fewer, and nearly every county in California and Illinois has lost children. Nor will a political explanation suffice; liberal-leaning regions outside New York City have more children, while ruby-red West Virginia has fewer.
In fact, the patchwork of growth and decline likely tells many stories, some local, some national. However, one region stands out for its widespread increase of children under five. The southeastern United States, from North Carolina to Texas, from Tennessee to Florida seems to show widespread growth among the largest number of counties. There are exceptions to this — impoverished counties along the Mississippi River and progressive-leaning cities such as Tampa Bay or Atlanta — but these are exceptions rather than the rule.
Three characteristics of this region are: 1) a low cost of living, which makes it an attractive destination for families looking to put down roots; 2) pro-growth policies that help families become upwardly mobile; and 3) a culture influenced by Christianity that values families.
These aren’t the only factors, nor are they exclusive to the South, but they are important ones to encourage young families. And remember that families with young children are literally raising the future.
Joshua Arnold is a senior writer at The Washington Stand.
