[jjeaff]

What's your definition of average? Because a $30k Mazda should not be average. It's way too expensive for most people. Also, you probably don't need one for each member of the family.

A 3,500 sq ft house with granite countertops and hardwood flooring for 4 people should probably not be average either.

With the exception of a few markets with very expensive land, we have a consumption problem. We have a keeping up with the Jones problem.

You don't have nearly as much worry about losing your home if you spend below your means.

[rangeofmotion]

I have spent a lot of time with a lot of families from wildly varied economic backgrounds. I'm not talking about people with brand new cars and 3,500 square foot houses (that would be a McMansion, I believe). I'm talking about Hondas and weather-worn Dodge pickups parked at a condo or a very modest house in a working class neighborhood.

Sure, the keeping up with the Jones thing is happening with a lot of people. But that does not appear to be the bulk of the problem. Heck, just drive through the country and tell me if you spot more McMansions or more McShacks.

[chrshawkes]

I feel my 3300 sq ft house for me, 2 kids and a dog is reasonable. Even townhouses these days are huge. I consider McMansions to be excess of 4000 sq ft.

[jjeaff]

3300 is above average. For what it's worth, wikipedia says more than 3,000 sq ft and has a citation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMansion

But there are other criteria as well.

[gfs78]

But then, are some of these things really needed? I don't have a car, I have a basic smartphone, and old basic laptop, not much in terms of clothes, and I don't travel abroad for holidays (all this because I cannot afford something better without getting into debt) and I get by fine (and I'm 40). Most millenials have at least a car (even a cheap one) or nice phones with nice data plans, or clothes, or travel to nice places at least once a year. Most of their debt is self-chosen.

[bobthepanda]

Most Americans do not live in areas where you could reasonably live without a car, and transit-rich, walkable areas have much higher rents.

[gfs78]

Would you mind putting in concrete examples the sentence "most Americans do not live in areas where you could reasonably live without a car". It's not a critique, I'm not american so I don't understand how could this be, given the level of development of the country and the proliferation of cities that you are supposed to have.

[bobthepanda]

Most Americans live in metropolitan areas, but the vast majority of these metropolitan areas are extremely low-density, single-use suburbs.

* The roads are long, winding, and poorly connected (so walking distances are excessive). This leads to ridiculous scenarios like https://usa.streetsblog.org/2013/02/28/sprawl-madness-two-ho...

* The stores are generally large big-box stores that is often kilometers from ones' house; there are no small corner shops and restaurants, because they are illegal.

* If you're still determined to walk, you probably need to cross large, high-speed roads with short crossing times, and your origin and destination are probably separated from the road by a large parking lot. And you may not even have sidewalks or crossing facilities. Example: https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Panera+Bread,+143+Alexander+...

* Public transit in American suburbs is a joke. Because it's so hard to walk around, ridership is very low, making frequency hard to justify, causing even lower ridership. And this is before you consider that

Americans are anti-tax

American suburbs have an associated history with white flight post-segregation, so people often object to transit because it'll let "criminals" in

So you wind up with situations like this Detroit man who walked 21 miles every day because he didn't have a car. https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/oakland/2015...