[thorwasdfasdf]

> If the numbers were really that off in the past wouldn't quality of living be much less than it is for most people in the US?

Yes. Absolutely. I saw an interview of someone who talked about living in the 60s. He was saying how a painter could own a home, afford a wife and six kids with no problem without the wife even working a 2nd job. Today, a single painter could barely afford himself, let alone a family of six and a house. I know it's anecdotle, but the difference is so vast and stark, I think it's obvious there's been a huge difference in quality of life over the last 60 years.

[jeffreyrogers]

I understand this argument, and I am somewhat in agreement with it. But here's where I'm skeptical. Where I live, there are some homes from this time period. They are very small, around ~1000sq ft. Maybe slightly bigger. Now people want much larger homes. They tend to have at least two cars and possibly more if they have kids. They go out to eat much more frequently and spend a lot more on entertainment.

Obviously, some of that you can't avoid. No one is making 1000 sq ft brick homes anymore for new homeowners, so you don't have an option of a small, cheap home in many areas. You only have the option of the bigger, more expensive home. But some of it is a personal choice. I think there is something to the argument you're making, but I also think people are underestimating the frugality of people in the past.

[maxsilver]

> No one is making 1000 sq ft brick homes anymore for new homeowners, so you don't have an option of a small, cheap home in many areas. You only have the option of the bigger, more expensive home

The bigger home is inherently cheaper, though. (At least, in the US).

A ~1800sqft new home (the average new low-end build out here in the midwest) takes way less resources and labour to construct than that old 1000sqft brick home did. Houses today are made out of the cheapest plastic and twigs (many don't even have a single piece of real wood in them anymore). Houses back then used bricks and real-wood timber (expensive to purchase, expensive to move, expensive to lay, etc). Your old brick house probably had expensive copper pipes, new builds use plastic PEX straws so cheap they're practically disposable, and so on.

Homes built today are made using far less labour, less materials, and far cheaper materials than before. If land and asset valuations had stayed consistent, homes today would be drastically cheaper than before. Yes, homes are "bigger", but those extra open empty spaces cost practically nothing extra, the fixed costs are mostly fixed and the variable costs are trivial.

[yardie]

Houses in my neighborhood have to be built strong enough to survive hurricane strength winds. The homes back in the day weren’t that much better. The ones you see survive to this day we’re either exceptionally well built or well maintained. But there is still plenty of trash with fresh paint being bought and sold everywhere.

[kec]

You're getting cause and effect backwards. New construction small homes don't exist because they aren't as profitable for developers to build not because there isn't demand for them.

I can guarantee you there are effectively zero millennials living with their parents or with roommates in a small apartment who would turn down the chance to own an affordable small home.

[jeffreyrogers]

I'm not getting cause and effect backwards. I just said no one is making those homes. I realize people would buy them if they were available.

[AnimalMuppet]

"Frugality of people in the past". Or, looked at from the other side, "extravagance of people today".

Or, more neutrally, our standards and expectations have changed from the 1960s. If you want the 2020 life on the kind of job that got you the 1960 life, you're in for a disappointment.

[sudosysgen]

But 1000sqft homes still exist and they are still wildly unaffordable.

[bluGill]

I'm in the process of moving (new job), and so I'm looking for houses. There are 1000sqf houses that aren't trashed for $100,000. I'm expecting to spend $500,000 for a 2500sqft house anyway, and only part of that is houses close to work are bigger. (there was a 1200sq ft house near work for $250k - not that I would have bought something that small)

[sudosysgen]

Where? Here in Montréal a 1000sqft house is in the 300k+ range.

[metalforever]

I don’t have any of this stuff and I make a lot of money and am not doing that well.

I live in 500 square feet, don’t go anywhere(like to a bar) and don’t have a car. I don’t have kids.

[dragonwriter]

> No one is making 1000 sq ft brick homes anymore for new homeowners

Well, the single-family detached suburban California home I bought as new (not complete when we signed) construction in 2006 was 997 sq. ft. on 0.1 acres, so other than “brick” that was certainly possible to find new not that long ago.

[thorwasdfasdf]

Yes, average home size has increased, but that's mainly for NEW homes, not existing homes.

You have to remember, those new homes are only bought up by about 1% of the population. So, to say that 1% can afford much larger homes is not saying much about the other 99%.