[wahern]

And yet the homeownership rate in 1950 was 53% (an all-time high up to that point) compared to 65% today: https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/Housi... Only 80% of units had private indoor toilets or showers.

It is notable that the median monthly rent was $35/month on a median income of $3000, so ~15% of income spent on rental housing. But it's interesting reading that report because a significant focus was on the overcrowding "problem". Housing was categorized by number of rooms, not number of bedrooms. The median number of rooms was 4, and the median number of occupants >4 per unit (or more than 1 person per room). I don't think it's a stretch to say that the amount of space and facilities you get for your money today is roughly equivalent. Yes, greater percentage of your income goes to housing, and yet we have far more creature comforts today then back in 1950--multiple TVs, cellphones, appliances, and endless amounts of other junk. We can buy many more goods (durable and non-durable) for a much lower percentage of our income.

There's no simple story here.

[somenameforme]

What an interesting paper you found! Home ownership stats in contemporary times are quite misleading because of debt. Most home owners now are still paying rent in the form of a mortgage to a bank. In the 50s most home owners genuinely owned their homes 'free and clear'. The exact rate was 56% in the 1951 per your paper (which was a local low), and now it's at 40% which is a local high. And the contemporary demographics are all messed up - it's largely driven by older to elderly individuals in non-urban low-income states.

As for number of occupants, the 50s had a sustainable fertility rate. That means, on average, every woman was having at least 2 kiddos. So a median 4 occupant house would be husband, wife, and 2 children living in a place with a master bedroom, kids room, a combined kitchen/dining room, and a living room. Bathrooms, oddly enough, did not count as rooms. So in modern parlance it'd mostly be a 2/2 for up to 14% of one person's median income, and 0% in most cases as most people 'really' owned their homes.

We definitely have lots more gizmos, but I feel like that's an exchange that relatively few people would make in hindsight.

[bombcar]

I sometimes feel that the facts are all out there, but half the people pick one half the facts as causal and the other half pick the other half. Are home prices rising because people have fewer kids (and therefore more to spend on housing) or are people having fewer kids because house prices are rising (and therefore less to spend on kids)?

I suspect that it's a complex mixture of all possibilities, and you can only really look at trends and your own life - the one thing you can have something resembling understanding and control.

[tmnvix]

> Are home prices rising because people have fewer kids (and therefore more to spend on housing) or are people having fewer kids because house prices are rising (and therefore less to spend on kids)?

Maybe a false dichotomy? My suspicion is that home prices rise because more credit becomes available (and not only homes prices but the price of other assets). If you think about it in broader terms this explains what happens to the fruits of our increased productivity - lenders extend more credit as productivity rises thereby claiming the benefit for themselves. The working person is still stuck with a 40 hour week because despite being more productive they have more debt to service.

[bombcar]

There's something there, definitely - reading "ordinary man's guide to the financial life" from different eras is informative; many of the older ones work really hard to convince you that a home loan is something worth getting and "you'll pay it off faster than you think" - now we have guides talking about "good debt" and "never pay it off".

[somenameforme]

I have a different take on it altogether. Religion previously worked as a sort of philosophical compass for life. It provided meaning and purpose, but as society has largely left religion behind, this left a void that was never really cleanly filled. So then in a post-religion society, what becomes the purpose in life? And I think for many, they simply have grabbed the lowest hanging fruit, even if subconsciously - wealth and materialism. And in this worldview there's not much room for children.

I think my little hypothesis here works to cleanly explain fertility crises much better than any other alternative. For instance the typical income:fertility hypothesis or education:fertility hypothesis both have endless glaring counter-examples like Thailand where the society is relatively poor with relatively low education, yet has a fertility rate now lower than even Japan.

It also explains the paradox of upper middle class couples claiming that they aren't having children because they don't have enough money, while lower income couples continue to have relatively healthy fertility rates, and it's for the same reason that extremely high income couples have relatively healthy fertility rates. Extremes of high and low income largely exclude one from materialism simply because there's no carrot to chase, whether because you can have it at any time you want, or simply because it's so far away that there's no hope of ever getting closer to it.