[egh]

I'm not sure what you're arguing here. The simple fact is the amount people pay for housing is up since the 1990s. You can find this data on the BLS web site: https://www.bls.gov/cex/csxmulti.htm

Here is the data adjusted for constant 2020 dollars:

  1992 $9,799.06
  1993 $9,543.99
  1994 $9,760.55
  1995 $9,924.05
  1996 $9,825.29
  1997 $10,106.90
  1998 $10,473.38
  1999 $10,712.59
  2000 $10,506.40
  2001 $11,055.55
  2002 $11,121.33
  2003 $10,997.04
  2004 $10,800.20
  2005 $11,497.24
  2006 $12,317.69
  2007 $12,262.90
  2008 $12,447.28
  2009 $11,989.00
  2010 $11,503.97
  2011 $11,187.78
  2012 $11,070.20
  2013 $11,114.82
  2014 $11,481.16
  2015 $11,670.71
  2016 $11,844.36
  2017 $12,399.22
  2018 $12,015.43
  2019 $12,190.00

[nickff]

I think the parent is arguing that those numbers are (only slowly) increasing because:

1) They are skewed by a few 'elite' metro areas (which are best avoided by those without very high-paying jobs).

2) The houses are nicer and have more 'features', which cost money.

And that if you remove the high COL areas, and control for the amenities, you will find costs are flat or decreasing.

[watwut]

But people can not buy theoretical smaller cheaper house with no AC if that one is not on sale.

[compiler-guy]

But given the choice between smaller and cheaper houses and larger and more expensive ones, they almost always choose the larger, more expensive ones.

The university in town is over a hundred years old, and many of the dorms are that old too. Most have no air conditioning, and have insufficient power for a resident to add a window air conditioner without special approval.

And the parents and students describe them as, "practically unlivable", "bad for the students' education, and all of that. There are numerous schemes around to get that special permission. And many scheme to move out ASAP. These are folks borrowing tens-of-thousands of dollars to go to school, and yet still go even deeper into debt for better housing, when the cheap option is right in front of them.

100 years ago no one would have thought twice about the exact same conditions. I doubt anyone would have thought twice about it even 50 years ago.

People just expect a certain level of amenities, and are willing to pay to get them.

[watwut]

I worked in office without AC under roof in summer and it was not just less comfortable, but productivity really went down measurably. I dont know how hot it gets there, but it can be so hot they are at disadvantage against students who dont live there.

I also stayed in house with bad insulation and it affected my health. 100 years ago, my health would be affected the same way whether better house would be available or not.

Maybe they are all irrational. Or maybe those dorms are really in bad shape.

[compiler-guy]

The point isn’t that air conditioning isn’t better. It truly is. It makes people’s lives better.

The point is that it is a somewhat new amenity that people value and are willing to pay for. and that makes housing more expensive.

[Dylan16807]

AC doesn't cost that much. Especially for a dorm situation, it should be less than $10 per person per month.

Almost nothing else needs to be upgraded.

And being too hot definitely impacts the ability to focus.

[JCharante]

Is the university housing really cheaper? At my university it's 2-3x market rate.

[pnutjam]

50 years ago it was cooler and everyone grew up without AC, they were used to it. That's not the case today. It's hotter and people grow up with AC and are not accustomed to living without it. The bar has moved.

[nickff]

Maybe people don't want those houses; maybe people are happy to move somewhere less prestigious to get the house they want.

[WarOnPrivacy]

> Maybe people don't want those houses

It's not clear what kind of houses you are envisioning.

Go to Zillow or Hotpads (rentals) & search for less prestigious homes. You still don't get places that can be afforded with a HS Graduate income.

tl;dr: People can't move out in their 20s because of math.

[Aunche]

It looks like this is counting the average rather than median, so it's going to be skewed by the top earners. Here is per capita income during the same time period using 2019 dollars:

  2019 39,156
  2018 36,734
  2017 36,553
  2017 35,970
  2016 35,375
  2015 34,157
  2014 32,619
  2013 33,008
  2013 31,691
  2012 31,549
  2011 31,389
  2010 31,208
  2009 31,690
  2008 32,096
  2007 33,131
  2006 33,496
  2005 32,855
  2004 32,368
  2003 32,433
  2002 32,483
  2001 33,077
  2000 33,267
  1999 32,692
  1998 31,629
  1997 30,657
  1996 29,521
  1995 28,788
  1994 28,332
  1993 27,564
  1992 26,593

https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-p...

It has increased even faster than average housing costs. To be fair, that's is expected because rich people don't spend the same percentage their income on housing as most other people.

[egh]

Good point. The data I reported is for "shelter" only, excluding utilities, furniture, etc., so I'm not sure how that looks on the income curve. You're also reporting average income, not median. Median income is much stabler, having climbed about $6000 since 1990.

My main point is, people are spending more on housing. It's not a mirage. It is highly concentrated where there are jobs, but of course people move to where the jobs are. It's facile to say they should move somewhere else, or that they are getting "more" for their housing.

[ChrisLomont]

>My main point is, people are spending more on housing. It's not a mirage.

House sizes have grown a lot too. When you factor that in, you get to what the OP stated: per square foot, housing prices have been remarkably constant (and for much longer than his 1990 to 2020 window).

When you factor in that houses are now vastly more energy efficient, safe, with niceties like central air, then modern home buyers are likely getting the best deals in history.

[x87678r]

Interesting, I've never seen that stat before. one problem is that inflation is a lot lower than before. If you borrowed a house in the 70s/80s you'd pay less each month but after 10 years that payment would be negligible, where now it still takes a big chunk out of your pay.

[kevstev]

I have actually wondered if this is where a big chunk of our parents perceived security came from- if I buy a house, but in 4 years I am making 20-30% more, and in 20 years I am making twice what I paid for the house, life feels pretty comfortable.

We have low interest rates today, but we aren't inflating out of our debt like generations past did.

[ChrisLomont]

But in the 70s/80s mortgage rates were ~15%, compared to ~ 3% today. So you still spent a significant amount of money on a mortgage.

[x87678r]

Yes but as above even with high rates the payment was lower.

[ChrisLomont]

Inflation adjusted housing cost per square foot has remained remarkably constant for decades. Thus, given higher interest rates over the same fixed timeframe, relative payments were higher.

[x87678r]

> Inflation adjusted housing cost per square foot has remained remarkably constant for decades

I think you mean for the first year. With higher inflation everyone got big wage rises each year which quickly made mortgages more affordable. Now wages are stagnating so even 10 years later most people dont earn much more than when they first took out the mortgage.

[ChrisLomont]

Care to show me these big wage rises each year?

[xyzzyz]

I spend much more on food now than I had when I had been a student, but it's not because the food is much more expensive, but rather I am much wealthier now.

Grows in expenditures does not immediately imply growth in costs.