3 ms·

It might also be worth starting to let go of the notion that you need 2000+ sq ft and a 1/4 acre yard as a minimum. Roads are effectively a subsidy to that life

by ed312 8y ago

It might also be worth starting to let go of the notion that you need 2000+ sq ft and a 1/4 acre yard as a minimum. Roads are effectively a subsidy to that life style (everyone shouldn't be forced to pay for the life style of a few).

User23 8y ago
I don’t think advocating lower standards of living is good persuasion. Also, roads are observably popular, because people desire to both go places and to have things delivered.
- praxulus 8y ago
  Spending an hour in traffic each day is not exactly my idea of a high standard of living.
  - User23 8y ago
    Different people are in different life stages and thus have different preferences.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
sbov 8y ago
I could do without the yard, but I couldn't imagine having much less than what we have now (1962 sq feet). 3 kids (1 a surprise - yay twins for the second pregnancy) plus a home office because I work from home.
- iso1337 8y ago
  Yes, once you are used to that kind of space, it’s hard to go back. Hedonistic treadmill and all (or some kind of treadmill). People in the 60s had larger families with smaller houses. However, to fulfill our expectations of progress, House sizes in America keep growing decade after decade. I’m fully guilty of this myself too. But like all things it cannot keep growing indefinitely. http://www.aei.org/publication/new-us-homes-today-are-1000-square-feet-larger-than-in-1973-and-living-space-per-person-has-nearly-doubled/ http://www.aei.org/publication/new-us-homes-today-are-1000-s...
  - sbov 8y ago
    Your link's lowest datapoint has the average/median square feet per person at 500/550 square feet, back around 1973. I'm at 392 square feet per person. I'm not sure I'm on a hedonistic treadmill, but if it is I'm in a time warp. Beyond that, the stats in that article are just plain bad because it ignores the fact that not everyone lives in a new house, but it still compares the average household size to ONLY new homes built in that year.
    - iso1337 8y ago
      Sorry, I was on mobile and found the first link. But I think the stats aren't as bad as you think. For any given year, you will have some inventory disappear completely. There is also new inventory being built. So, the average house size of all houses is also increasing. Not as much as the average new house size, but definitely increasing. Most people don't live in old houses from the 60s. I would actually ignore the average household size. We already know that that that decreasing over time. Note that I didn't intend my comment to be a personal attack on you. I'm merely trying to point out this trend. Apologies if I came off that way. But your case also highlights another fact that was rare back in the day -- using your house as an office is increasingly becoming viable or necessary for those doing remote work.
      - sbov 8y ago
        Yeah, between smaller households and new houses being built being on average larger, the trend certainly is that we are getting more square feet for less people. I just think the article does a lot of things with the numbers that are questionable. I didn't take it personally, but I also didn't quite know the best way to respond either. I probably didn't do the best job at it.

by ed312 8y ago

User23 8y ago

I don’t think advocating lower standards of living is good persuasion. Also, roads are observably popular, because people desire to both go places and to have things delivered.

praxulus 8y ago
Spending an hour in traffic each day is not exactly my idea of a high standard of living.
- User23 8y ago
  Different people are in different life stages and thus have different preferences.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

sbov 8y ago

I could do without the yard, but I couldn't imagine having much less than what we have now (1962 sq feet). 3 kids (1 a surprise - yay twins for the second pregnancy) plus a home office because I work from home.

iso1337 8y ago
Yes, once you are used to that kind of space, it’s hard to go back. Hedonistic treadmill and all (or some kind of treadmill). People in the 60s had larger families with smaller houses. However, to fulfill our expectations of progress, House sizes in America keep growing decade after decade. I’m fully guilty of this myself too. But like all things it cannot keep growing indefinitely. http://www.aei.org/publication/new-us-homes-today-are-1000-square-feet-larger-than-in-1973-and-living-space-per-person-has-nearly-doubled/ http://www.aei.org/publication/new-us-homes-today-are-1000-s...
- sbov 8y ago
  Your link's lowest datapoint has the average/median square feet per person at 500/550 square feet, back around 1973. I'm at 392 square feet per person. I'm not sure I'm on a hedonistic treadmill, but if it is I'm in a time warp. Beyond that, the stats in that article are just plain bad because it ignores the fact that not everyone lives in a new house, but it still compares the average household size to ONLY new homes built in that year.
  - iso1337 8y ago
    Sorry, I was on mobile and found the first link. But I think the stats aren't as bad as you think. For any given year, you will have some inventory disappear completely. There is also new inventory being built. So, the average house size of all houses is also increasing. Not as much as the average new house size, but definitely increasing. Most people don't live in old houses from the 60s. I would actually ignore the average household size. We already know that that that decreasing over time. Note that I didn't intend my comment to be a personal attack on you. I'm merely trying to point out this trend. Apologies if I came off that way. But your case also highlights another fact that was rare back in the day -- using your house as an office is increasingly becoming viable or necessary for those doing remote work.
    - sbov 8y ago
      Yeah, between smaller households and new houses being built being on average larger, the trend certainly is that we are getting more square feet for less people. I just think the article does a lot of things with the numbers that are questionable. I didn't take it personally, but I also didn't quite know the best way to respond either. I probably didn't do the best job at it.