6 ms·

Ever compare a 1940s middle-class house to a middle-class house of today? They're tiny. They probably have one bathroom. The bedrooms will be small. The garage,

Ever compare a 1940s middle-class house to a middle-class house of today? They're tiny. They probably have one bathroom. The bedrooms will be small. The garage, if there is one, is probably not attached to the house. The household probably had one car. Maybe had a phone, maybe not. Such a lifestyle could still be afforded buy a single income earner if they would really live the way a 1940s family lived.

Kluny 8y ago
I think a lot of my age group would be happy to buy such houses if there were any available. Where I'm from there are none, and if there are, they still sell for over half a million.
Aloha 8y ago
I dont get the desire for huge houses - finding a nice 1500sqft home is hard - yes the extra space is great, but I gotta heat and cool that space. Beyond that - in 1948, radio was something everyone hard, Television was a luxury, a home phone was pretty universal, owning a car less so, even electric coffee pots were seen less often - no smart phones, tablets or home computers - though many had a typewriter. People wrote letters frequently, as long distance phone calls were a luxury.
- phil21 8y ago
  The thing is though the whole "kids these days with their fancy TV and cable and monthly bills!" is almost becoming outdated, and was only a "thing" for a few decades. Now I can replace all of that with a single device and single monthly bill - a device I need to have professionally anyways to participate in most of the economy. My slightly younger millenial friends probably have monthly recurring expenses not a whole lot more % of income wise than the 1940's. They pay for a cellular data package and have a relatively modern phone, and that's about it. A 52" flat-screen TV is less than the cost of a radio in the 1940's today - it's just not relevant.
  - Aloha 8y ago
    I'd argue that the MRC that most people in the 20-35 range pay is probably about 25% more than it would have been in 1948 - in 1948, most people might take a couple magazines, the newspaper, and of course, their phone service. There is a convincing argument however to me, that the poor of 2018, have a better existence and are better connected to the world that the poor of 1948.
petermcneeley 8y ago
Nobody is questioning the economic growth from 40s to 80s (Golden Era). Its the growth (and inequality) after that period that is in question. The concern now is the economic prospects for the millennial and future generations.
- thedufer 8y ago
  The first post in this thread explicitly compares the present to the 40s. It seems somewhat unreasonable to expect ams6110 to foresee you moving the goalposts.
  - petermcneeley 8y ago
    The original post refers to the golden era as well and its decline. "Prosperity has been increasing in the 20th century, but has not increased for a few decades." No goalposts are changing.
    - thedufer 8y ago
      > In the 40s and 50s a middle class household could get by just fine (and the house be bought) by a single income earner. Such a house now would be on the verge of bankruptcy. I dunno, it feels like responding to that with a comparison of a household in the 40s to one today is fair.
rexpop 8y ago
Please, please direct me to such a housing market. I am desperate to find such a home.
- conception 8y ago
  Do you just want a house in a old neighborhood or an affordable one in an old neighborhood? San Diego has quite a few of the former.
phil21 8y ago
My father's house was built in the 1940's and is as you described. It's now going for over $225k in a flyover state. He bought the place in the 80's for $72k on a $40k/yr salary - and the job he held to pay for it pays $44k/yr today. The exact same house is out of each for the exact same job today. Housing has skyrocketed by all available metrics. The one that matters most of course is % of after tax income spent, and it's never been higher.
- ams6110 8y ago
  The other thing people were more willing to do in the 1940s was move to where they could afford to live.
  - ntsplnkv2 8y ago
    It was much easier to find places like that, though. The rust belt was booming then. There were more options. Now for the best opportunity you have to take a risk and live in the major cities with astronomical housing prices or long commutes.
    - deadmetheny 8y ago
      It never ceases to amaze me that people seem to be under the impression that there's no good jobs anywhere that isn't the coast. Oh well, I guess we silly flyovers can just keep this affordable and comfortable living situation to ourselves.
      - ntsplnkv2 8y ago
        You've missed my point, or perhaps I wasn't clear enough, from parent: > The other thing people were more willing to do in the 1940s was move to where they could afford to live. Where can you move today that offers affordable living and a good, steady job? Lets say you were on the expensive east coast and wanted a cheaper, more affordable place to live, with work. You'd consider Pittsburgh or Detroit, maybe. Both tick the boxes - affordable, plenty of good, union jobs, enough to own a home and build a family. Does Pittsburgh fit that bill today? The answer is unequivocally no. Sure, housing prices are down compared nationally - but the last 10 years have seen a boon in housing prices here. Flipping is happening like crazy. Rents have increased. But wages have not - because cost of living adjustments punish employees in places like Pittsburgh. I assume you're coming from a tech perspective. It's easy for that to skew your PoV. Think of it as the lay person. It's a much riskier prospect today. Pittsburgh is one of the worst cities in the country for retaining recent college graduates (Pitt, CMU, Duquesne, etc). Why? The job market simply isn't large enough.
war1025 8y ago
My dad (born 1957) grew up in a tiny farmhouse, 6th of 8 kids, and had an outhouse until I believe 8th grade. Meaning my oldest couple aunts and uncles moved out before they had indoor plumbing. Admittedly, they were pretty poor, but most people couldn't even imagine living in those conditions anymore. At the time it wasn't unusual.
- DoctorOetker 8y ago
  If knowledge and intelligence keep progressing while nothing is done about housing, I can imagine the educated poor resorting to ever more extreme "out of the box" solutions: Why do we live in houses? Partially to meet certain basic necessities: - shelter from adverse temperature (too hot or too cold outside), adverse weather (rain, snow, wind): outside walls and roof - a place to wash, a mirror to inspect yourself, a toilet: bathroom - a place to sleep: bedroom - a place to eat: a table and chairs - a place for work: a desk and a chair - privacy: a lock on the door to prevent theft, or violence - a place for leisure or inviting guests: living room Out of poverty leisure is likely to be sacrificed, but it may be possible to live a much cheaper life if these functionalities can be compactly (and probably inadequately) substituted. What features can be portably arranged into a suit? Imagine a kind of space suit -not intended for actual space- with smart temperature control say inspired on a rete mirabile [0] to exchange mass (say import oxygen and export carbon dioxide, while conserving heat), humidity etc, depending on outside and inside measurements. This would probably necessitate a cheap helmet to keep the conditioned air inside (during adverse outside conditionns). It should be weather proof too. It should require little clean-up, or alternatively the suit should be lightweight enough so an it can be carried or washed while the extra is worn. A big problem for homeless people is theft and violence. So the suit should have intelligent motion detectors, and possibly communicate to other high-tech low-lifes to share news of danger, in order to allow sleep. Sanitation will probably be commercialized cubicles of bathrooms. Similarily workspace will probably be measured in desks (with a selectable height limit for your stuff) and archives, and these will be stored as trays by an automated system, such that you can enter one of the vacant rooms, login, select one of your desks or boxes, after which your tray/desk is loaded in front of you, exactly as you left the contents on the desk the previous time. You rent the room at some price per hour, but also each desk or volume of boxes at their respective rates for storage. [0] Rete mirabile: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rete_mirabile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rete_mirabile But I believe we will fix the housing issue in a more fundamentalist way.
st26 8y ago
Of course the plots generally seem to have been much larger. None of this sixteenth of an acre stuff. And that's where all your money is going, to buy that sixteenth of an acre. The house itself is only a very small part of the cost in many of the metro areas beset by housing crisis.

Kluny 8y ago

I think a lot of my age group would be happy to buy such houses if there were any available. Where I'm from there are none, and if there are, they still sell for over half a million.

Aloha 8y ago

I dont get the desire for huge houses - finding a nice 1500sqft home is hard - yes the extra space is great, but I gotta heat and cool that space. Beyond that - in 1948, radio was something everyone hard, Television was a luxury, a home phone was pretty universal, owning a car less so, even electric coffee pots were seen less often - no smart phones, tablets or home computers - though many had a typewriter. People wrote letters frequently, as long distance phone calls were a luxury.

phil21 8y ago
The thing is though the whole "kids these days with their fancy TV and cable and monthly bills!" is almost becoming outdated, and was only a "thing" for a few decades. Now I can replace all of that with a single device and single monthly bill - a device I need to have professionally anyways to participate in most of the economy. My slightly younger millenial friends probably have monthly recurring expenses not a whole lot more % of income wise than the 1940's. They pay for a cellular data package and have a relatively modern phone, and that's about it. A 52" flat-screen TV is less than the cost of a radio in the 1940's today - it's just not relevant.
- Aloha 8y ago
  I'd argue that the MRC that most people in the 20-35 range pay is probably about 25% more than it would have been in 1948 - in 1948, most people might take a couple magazines, the newspaper, and of course, their phone service. There is a convincing argument however to me, that the poor of 2018, have a better existence and are better connected to the world that the poor of 1948.

petermcneeley 8y ago

Nobody is questioning the economic growth from 40s to 80s (Golden Era). Its the growth (and inequality) after that period that is in question. The concern now is the economic prospects for the millennial and future generations.

thedufer 8y ago
The first post in this thread explicitly compares the present to the 40s. It seems somewhat unreasonable to expect ams6110 to foresee you moving the goalposts.
- petermcneeley 8y ago
  The original post refers to the golden era as well and its decline. "Prosperity has been increasing in the 20th century, but has not increased for a few decades." No goalposts are changing.
  - thedufer 8y ago
    > In the 40s and 50s a middle class household could get by just fine (and the house be bought) by a single income earner. Such a house now would be on the verge of bankruptcy. I dunno, it feels like responding to that with a comparison of a household in the 40s to one today is fair.

rexpop 8y ago

Please, please direct me to such a housing market. I am desperate to find such a home.

conception 8y ago
Do you just want a house in a old neighborhood or an affordable one in an old neighborhood? San Diego has quite a few of the former.

phil21 8y ago

My father's house was built in the 1940's and is as you described. It's now going for over $225k in a flyover state. He bought the place in the 80's for $72k on a $40k/yr salary - and the job he held to pay for it pays $44k/yr today. The exact same house is out of each for the exact same job today. Housing has skyrocketed by all available metrics. The one that matters most of course is % of after tax income spent, and it's never been higher.

ams6110 8y ago
The other thing people were more willing to do in the 1940s was move to where they could afford to live.
- ntsplnkv2 8y ago
  It was much easier to find places like that, though. The rust belt was booming then. There were more options. Now for the best opportunity you have to take a risk and live in the major cities with astronomical housing prices or long commutes.
  - deadmetheny 8y ago
    It never ceases to amaze me that people seem to be under the impression that there's no good jobs anywhere that isn't the coast. Oh well, I guess we silly flyovers can just keep this affordable and comfortable living situation to ourselves.
    - ntsplnkv2 8y ago
      You've missed my point, or perhaps I wasn't clear enough, from parent: > The other thing people were more willing to do in the 1940s was move to where they could afford to live. Where can you move today that offers affordable living and a good, steady job? Lets say you were on the expensive east coast and wanted a cheaper, more affordable place to live, with work. You'd consider Pittsburgh or Detroit, maybe. Both tick the boxes - affordable, plenty of good, union jobs, enough to own a home and build a family. Does Pittsburgh fit that bill today? The answer is unequivocally no. Sure, housing prices are down compared nationally - but the last 10 years have seen a boon in housing prices here. Flipping is happening like crazy. Rents have increased. But wages have not - because cost of living adjustments punish employees in places like Pittsburgh. I assume you're coming from a tech perspective. It's easy for that to skew your PoV. Think of it as the lay person. It's a much riskier prospect today. Pittsburgh is one of the worst cities in the country for retaining recent college graduates (Pitt, CMU, Duquesne, etc). Why? The job market simply isn't large enough.

war1025 8y ago

My dad (born 1957) grew up in a tiny farmhouse, 6th of 8 kids, and had an outhouse until I believe 8th grade. Meaning my oldest couple aunts and uncles moved out before they had indoor plumbing. Admittedly, they were pretty poor, but most people couldn't even imagine living in those conditions anymore. At the time it wasn't unusual.

DoctorOetker 8y ago
If knowledge and intelligence keep progressing while nothing is done about housing, I can imagine the educated poor resorting to ever more extreme "out of the box" solutions: Why do we live in houses? Partially to meet certain basic necessities: - shelter from adverse temperature (too hot or too cold outside), adverse weather (rain, snow, wind): outside walls and roof - a place to wash, a mirror to inspect yourself, a toilet: bathroom - a place to sleep: bedroom - a place to eat: a table and chairs - a place for work: a desk and a chair - privacy: a lock on the door to prevent theft, or violence - a place for leisure or inviting guests: living room Out of poverty leisure is likely to be sacrificed, but it may be possible to live a much cheaper life if these functionalities can be compactly (and probably inadequately) substituted. What features can be portably arranged into a suit? Imagine a kind of space suit -not intended for actual space- with smart temperature control say inspired on a rete mirabile [0] to exchange mass (say import oxygen and export carbon dioxide, while conserving heat), humidity etc, depending on outside and inside measurements. This would probably necessitate a cheap helmet to keep the conditioned air inside (during adverse outside conditionns). It should be weather proof too. It should require little clean-up, or alternatively the suit should be lightweight enough so an it can be carried or washed while the extra is worn. A big problem for homeless people is theft and violence. So the suit should have intelligent motion detectors, and possibly communicate to other high-tech low-lifes to share news of danger, in order to allow sleep. Sanitation will probably be commercialized cubicles of bathrooms. Similarily workspace will probably be measured in desks (with a selectable height limit for your stuff) and archives, and these will be stored as trays by an automated system, such that you can enter one of the vacant rooms, login, select one of your desks or boxes, after which your tray/desk is loaded in front of you, exactly as you left the contents on the desk the previous time. You rent the room at some price per hour, but also each desk or volume of boxes at their respective rates for storage. [0] Rete mirabile: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rete_mirabile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rete_mirabile But I believe we will fix the housing issue in a more fundamentalist way.

st26 8y ago

Of course the plots generally seem to have been much larger. None of this sixteenth of an acre stuff. And that's where all your money is going, to buy that sixteenth of an acre. The house itself is only a very small part of the cost in many of the metro areas beset by housing crisis.