Having kids later in life keeps the total population smaller while still allowing the same number of people to exist spread out over time. This has a theoretical positive effect of reducing crowding. Would you rather your children have the opportunity to live in a house, or be permanent apartment/condo dwellers?
I guess it’s highly regional, but for the US as a whole at least hasn’t had a population decline in ever. Which means that following your logic, sooner is better. I think a more practical bit of advice, if a house if a concern, is to buy a house to raise your children in.
> Which means that following your logic, sooner is better.
This is a collective action problem. Everyone benefits in terms of room with a smaller population. But yes, the individual benefits by defecting from the collective action.
> if a house if a concern, is to buy a house to raise your children in.
Not raise in, live in. It would be economically convenient to pass your house down to one of your children at the point when you are downsizing for retirement and they are wanting to begin a family.
