5 ms·
The book covers that. The average size of new homes has increased by 40 percent, but that's just new homes, a minority of the housing stock. "In fact, the size
by apsec112 10y ago
The book covers that. The average size of new homes has increased by 40 percent, but that's just new homes, a minority of the housing stock.
"In fact, the size and amenities of the average middle-class family home have increased only modestly. The median owner-occupied home grew from 5.7 rooms in 1975 to 6.1 rooms in the late 1990s—an increase of less than half of a room in more than two decades. What was this half a room used for? Was it an “exercise room,” a “media room,” or any of the other exotic uses of space that critics have so widely mocked? Nope. The data show that most often that extra room was a second bathroom or a third bedroom.
The wealthy may be living in spacious new digs, but middle-class families are not. The proportion of families living in older homes has increased by nearly 50 percent over the past generation, leaving a growing number of homeowners grappling with deteriorating roofs, peeling paint, and old wiring. Today, nearly six out of ten families own a home that is more than 25 years old, and nearly a quarter own a home that is more than 50 years old."
- blackguardx 10y agoWhat is wrong with living in an old house? Old wiring, depending on when it was put in, isn't necessarily bad. Knob and tube wiring (a really old style) can probably never start an electrical fire (assuming the outlets are periodically replaced) because the conductors are separated by 18 inches or more. A roof needs to be replaced every 20 years or so. Paint, more often. If the house you own has peeling paint or a leaking roof, look in the mirror and blame that person. Don't blame the age of the house.
- CountSessine 10y agoA helpful summary (I hope): Dowwie: Let's all just get paid more! apsec112: Just paying everyone more when everyone buys things in inelastic markets like housing doesn't make anyone richer. This can be observed empirically with two-income households in 1975 vs today; people pay more today for the same thing they had in 1975. alasdair_: Houses are bigger today (perhaps he meant to imply that actually we all are richer today because we're actually paying more for something better) apsec112: A small number of houses today are bigger, but most people live in old houses that aren't any bigger; IOW we are paying more for the same as what we had in 1975. blackguard: Old houses are ok too! (yes they are, but that's not germane...)
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- Dowwie 10y agoHey! I didn't say that!
- CountSessine 10y agoSorry - did you want to correct me? That's how I interpreted your comment; perhaps I was mistaken.
- phil21 10y agoHouses are a depreciating asset, and should be seen more like a car than anything else. Japan gets this right. While some houses are built to last and worth saving (e.g. most houses you see still standing 150 years later) - most are definitely not. Trying to maintain a typical poorly constructed wood frame McMansion for 100 years probably doesn't make a lot of sense. Plus I've lived in old crappy houses. Old wiring definitely sucks - you may be limited in a room you want to do something else in, and then realize you can't do much due to the plaster walls to fix it short of gutting the entire area. Most plumbing is only really rated at 20-30 years, but it's rare to ever see anyone replace it wholesale. I've lived in crappy yet well maintained (but not updated) houses and it's not that much fun.
- blackguardx 10y agoI've also lived in crappy new houses/apartments and it is not that much fun either. I guess YMMV?