The point is precisely that neither of them is an outlier within their respective time -- they are normal people who want "normal" housing: i.e. just enough to raise a family in.
The parents born in the 30s-50s could largely afford to purchase homes large enough to raise a family in, but far fewer people born in the 70s-90s will be able to do the same.
This isn't really true. First, what's considered "big enough to raise a family in" has doubled since the 1950s-1970s. I grew up in an 1,100 square foot house built in the 1950s. The starter homes around us are double that size.
Also, as the U.S. grows, the "frontiers" obviously shift. Since 1970, the U.S. has grown from 205 million to 330 million, and the number of people per house has gone down significantly. Back when it was built in the 1950s, the house I grew up in was in a new development in a boring suburb of D.C--itself a boring city with mainly GS-scale government jobs. Now, with all the tech jobs in the D.C. area, it's become a more desirable, upscale place.
What used to be the boring, middle-class suburb is now somewhere around Kansas City, MO or Greensboro, NC. Houses in those places are just as affordable as the houses you grew up in. In fact, when you account for growing house size and falling interest rates, they are more affordable: https://donsnotes.com/financial/real-estate.html
> The parents born in the 30s-50s could largely afford to purchase homes large enough to raise a family in, but far fewer people born in the 70s-90s will be able to do the same.
Does not explain why home sizes grew 2.5x since the 1950s, while the average household size dropped from 3.4 to 2.5. (which is in large part due to the many single-person households).
There's many indications that we're enjoying much more real estate per person than ever before, real estate which is also much more luxurious and located in much more interesting locations, with better schools, more safety, more amenities etc.
Second, we tend to easily forget that the past wasn't divided equally. Being a woman and running your own household independent from a husband was a pipe dream for many women back then. Buying a home was a pipe dream for many black families, too. There's lots of such examples. This past we speak of where 'we all' had it better is often actually a bit of a narrow view of certain groups of people having it better, ignoring others who definitely didn't. Whereas now the average person is better off, in small part at the expense of a smaller group who used to dominate before.
This is highly dependent on society/nation standards. I grew up in a 750 sqft apartment (family of 5). My wife grew up in a 440 sqft (family of 4). Now I consider 250 sqft/person to be a palace, but in the US it's probably considered unlivable.
Exactly. It’s not some fundamental biological fact that you can’t raise a family in fewer than 1500 sq. ft. of house and 1/4 an acre of property. That was just a cultural norm set in a particular time and place.
I don't understand what the value to you is here in arguing that we all ought to just settle for less. More space is preferable, better conditions are preferable, and we do have the capabilities to work toward these things for all humans.
The specific factors of post-WWII America may be unlikely ever to be repeated, but I can't agree that we should all settle for life as it was in the 1910s or earlier on the basis that that's simply 'how life is' -- the status quo is not an argument for itself.
The average (human, at least) life has improved substantially in the last few hundred years in some key ways (admitting that there are some ways it is likely worse). Even if the potential improvements to life track a sigmoid curve, there's no reason at all yet to think we've maxed it out, let alone gone beyond what's possible.
We can absolutely continue to improve, so it seems totally fair to identify and analyze causes, means, and paths to do so, i.e., recognizing "I cannot afford the same standard of life as my parents did" as something that ideally would be different, and discussing patterns of wage growth, economic trends, and policy decisions that might counteract that perceivable regression of quality.
People shouldn’t be made to feel like they would be or are bad parents if they put two kids in a room. Because I think the upshot to that is not going to be some workers’ movement that produces less inequality but instead fewer people that want kids having them due to fear of social stigma.
That's a really good point! I agree that we should be supportive of parents in the face of circumstances they can't directly control, rather than stigmatize them or hold them to an unfair standard. Thanks for explaining it that way.
I also think we can both do that and work to continue to improve circumstances, which to me includes recognizing that the circumstances can be improved.
A sentence with "ought" in it is a signal that what follows is a pointless thought. You can't will things into existence by saying it "ought" to be that way.
As to your other point, some aspects of living conditions are scalable, and others are not--something that's obvious if you're thinking about what "is" rather than what "ought to be." Technology doesn't magic more land into existence. As the population of the country grows (it has grown from 200 million in 1970 to 330 million today) space becomes more expensive. There is no reason to assume that the trend should be toward more space per person. In fact, physics and math tells you the trend should be in the opposite direction.
> A sentence with "ought" in it is a signal that what follows is a pointless thought. You can't will things into existence by saying it "ought" to be that way.
Thanks for making it clear right up front that any time spent trying to communicate with you is wasted. :)
The parents born in the 30s-50s could largely afford to purchase homes large enough to raise a family in, but far fewer people born in the 70s-90s will be able to do the same.