3 ms·

This data seems to stop in 2003, before Great Recession and the massive increase in housing costs in urban centers. Also doesn’t seem to take into account the d

This data seems to stop in 2003, before Great Recession and the massive increase in housing costs in urban centers. Also doesn’t seem to take into account the dramatic increases in healthcare costs in the intervening years. I’m not sure how useful it is as a measure?

twblalock 6y ago
Do you honestly believe that modern households, even after the Great Recession, spend more on food than housing? Come up with better data if you don't like mine.
- claudeganon 6y ago
  No? I think that housing prices as a percentage of income have increased since then and are trending worse for younger generations, which a quick google suggests is true: https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/Harvard_JCHS_Americas_Rental_Housing_2020.pdf https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/Harvard_JCH... https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/real-estate/2018/05/18/millennials-spend-large-percentage-income-rent/609061002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/real-es... The late 90s (just before this study ends) were also one of the last periods of meaningful wage growth. So combined with, again, a lack of consideration about things like rising healthcare costs, it’s difficult to view this study as relevant or meaningful. And especially when the data ends before the now two largest downturns since the Great Depression.
- geofft 6y ago
  I don't think anyone's claiming anything about the relative spending on food and housing, nor that it has any bearing on the matter under discussion - I think the claim is that total spending on "essential needs" has remained fairly high and has not become "much better." According to the article you linked, while food, housing, and clothing are now only about 50% of your budget instead of 80%, there's also about 20% on transportation costs, which didn't show up in the 1900 figure. I think those also count as "essential needs." Things are better than in the early 1900s, but not by very much.

twblalock 6y ago

Do you honestly believe that modern households, even after the Great Recession, spend more on food than housing? Come up with better data if you don't like mine.

claudeganon 6y ago
No? I think that housing prices as a percentage of income have increased since then and are trending worse for younger generations, which a quick google suggests is true: https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/Harvard_JCHS_Americas_Rental_Housing_2020.pdf https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/Harvard_JCH... https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/real-estate/2018/05/18/millennials-spend-large-percentage-income-rent/609061002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/real-es... The late 90s (just before this study ends) were also one of the last periods of meaningful wage growth. So combined with, again, a lack of consideration about things like rising healthcare costs, it’s difficult to view this study as relevant or meaningful. And especially when the data ends before the now two largest downturns since the Great Depression.
geofft 6y ago
I don't think anyone's claiming anything about the relative spending on food and housing, nor that it has any bearing on the matter under discussion - I think the claim is that total spending on "essential needs" has remained fairly high and has not become "much better." According to the article you linked, while food, housing, and clothing are now only about 50% of your budget instead of 80%, there's also about 20% on transportation costs, which didn't show up in the 1900 figure. I think those also count as "essential needs." Things are better than in the early 1900s, but not by very much.