Point 1 is relevant to the housing issue. Cheap housing in cities via densification probably reduces fertility. It becomes easier to have children in the city, but more people live there (where TFR is lower), making the net effect negative. Still a good thing for other reasons.
I'd also add that a few of these points are dubious or wrong. Scandinavia and France vs Japan is a bad comparison; Europeans generally have higher fertility then East Asians within any given society. This is a genetic effect. Not that either region has very impressive fertility.
And + men's housework doesn't increase fertility. Cross-sectional results on this are very weak evidence; longitudinal studies find no effect on fertility intentions and imply reverse causation: more kids => more men's housework.
jstor.org/stable/45174480
Part of this is because men's fertility intentions matter too. Much of the literature on fertility tacitly assumes women's intentions are all that matter and men's are irrelevant. This not true.
Natural experiments on paternity leave (which is not the same thing, but closely related), find it *reduces* fertility, possibly because it reduces male wages [my interpretation, not the papter's].
iza.org/publications/d…
In general, I think the idea that we can get high fertility post-2nd Wave feminism by just doing feminism harder is based almost entirely on wishful thinking and overfitting on Scandinavia (before 2010) and France.
It's a specific case of the very common "weak men are making feminism fail" line of rhetoric. If we just turn the screws on men a little bit harder, all the negative externalities of the past 50 years of doing that will go away.
dalrock.wordpress.com/category/weak-…
Addendum.
Share this Scrolly Tale with your friends.
A Scrolly Tale is a new way to read Twitter threads with a more visually immersive experience.
Discover more beautiful Scrolly Tales like this.