4 ms·

In 1950, the average space per person was 259 sq ft. People in the 1950s turned out just fine. The larger and larger homes we are seeing today while witnessing

In 1950, the average space per person was 259 sq ft. People in the 1950s turned out just fine. The larger and larger homes we are seeing today while witnessing the ever declining family size are the result of unadulterated greed, pure and simple. Source: https://www.yesmagazine.org/planet/the-righteous-small-house-challenging-house-size-and-the-irresponsible-american-dream https://www.yesmagazine.org/planet/the-righteous-small-house...

jimmaswell 8y ago
The rich of back then had big houses too. It's not some increase in greed, just an increase in accessibility. I don't see the need to ascribe negative traits like greed to wanting more space in any case.
- tathougies 8y ago
  The rich back then were greedy, just as the rich are today. Greed in 1950 is as bad as greed today. Arguing that there are more greedy people does not exonerate anyone. It's not like there being more greedy people somehow lessens the amount of greed experienced by each one. In other words, greed is not a zero-sum game. And yes, greed is a negative trait when your greed means wasting things that you objectively do not need.
  - jimmaswell 8y ago
    You objectively do not need to be wasting electricity web browsing either. I don't buy that argument.
    - tathougies 8y ago
      I pointed out that people did just as well with less space. This is evidence they do not need more space, and that it is wasteful to use more space for fewer people. My job requires web browsing, and insofar as my employment is good for society, I'm not convinced it's at the same level of utility. Also, no one asked me in incredulity how I could get by with less electricity.
ryandrake 8y ago
I just want to know what on earth people are filling these enormous 2000+ sq.ft houses with! 4 bedrooms, 3 bathrooms? Even if you have 4 people in your family, do they all need separate rooms, and what is the probability that they all need to pee at the exact same time?
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Even if you have 4 people in your family, do they all need separate rooms “Need” is a flexible term; it's clearly possible for people to survive without any rooms. But, yes, there's plenty of reason to believe that there are benefits to having a private space. But most likely a four-person family with a 4-bedroom house has two adults sharing the master bedroom, two children with their own rooms, and a guest room and/or office. > and what is the probability that they all need to pee at the exact same time? Hopefully, close to zero, since your hypothetical still has fewer bathrooms than people. But multiple restrooms. But, it's actually quite likely that multiple people will be using bathrooms for either elimination or bathing at the same time, particularly in the mornings. (It's also somewhat likely when entertaining, which is one of the reasons people want large houses.)

jimmaswell 8y ago

The rich of back then had big houses too. It's not some increase in greed, just an increase in accessibility. I don't see the need to ascribe negative traits like greed to wanting more space in any case.

tathougies 8y ago
The rich back then were greedy, just as the rich are today. Greed in 1950 is as bad as greed today. Arguing that there are more greedy people does not exonerate anyone. It's not like there being more greedy people somehow lessens the amount of greed experienced by each one. In other words, greed is not a zero-sum game. And yes, greed is a negative trait when your greed means wasting things that you objectively do not need.
- jimmaswell 8y ago
  You objectively do not need to be wasting electricity web browsing either. I don't buy that argument.
  - tathougies 8y ago
    I pointed out that people did just as well with less space. This is evidence they do not need more space, and that it is wasteful to use more space for fewer people. My job requires web browsing, and insofar as my employment is good for society, I'm not convinced it's at the same level of utility. Also, no one asked me in incredulity how I could get by with less electricity.

ryandrake 8y ago

I just want to know what on earth people are filling these enormous 2000+ sq.ft houses with! 4 bedrooms, 3 bathrooms? Even if you have 4 people in your family, do they all need separate rooms, and what is the probability that they all need to pee at the exact same time?

dragonwriter 8y ago
> Even if you have 4 people in your family, do they all need separate rooms “Need” is a flexible term; it's clearly possible for people to survive without any rooms. But, yes, there's plenty of reason to believe that there are benefits to having a private space. But most likely a four-person family with a 4-bedroom house has two adults sharing the master bedroom, two children with their own rooms, and a guest room and/or office. > and what is the probability that they all need to pee at the exact same time? Hopefully, close to zero, since your hypothetical still has fewer bathrooms than people. But multiple restrooms. But, it's actually quite likely that multiple people will be using bathrooms for either elimination or bathing at the same time, particularly in the mornings. (It's also somewhat likely when entertaining, which is one of the reasons people want large houses.)