3 ms·

A typical house in the 1930s cost between 50-100K in 2020 dollars. Houses can be had this cheap all over the country. To use my hometown as an example, conside

A typical house in the 1930s cost between 50-100K in 2020 dollars. Houses can be had this cheap all over the country. To use my hometown as an example, consider this 1948 house that Redfin believes is worth $30K: https://www.redfin.com/AR/North-Little-Rock/707-Gardenia-Ave-72117/home/82955744 https://www.redfin.com/AR/North-Little-Rock/707-Gardenia-Ave... It's 3 miles from the downtown of a half-million person metro area. If you're willing to go up into that $50-100K range, you will find plenty of fine houses in mid-sized cities throughout the Midwest/South. The apartment I rented was an 1100 square foot, 2 bedroom townhouse a block from the bus stop -- $350/month.

pmiller2 6y ago
But, that's not the "typical" house anymore. You're equating the very cheapest houses and apartments today with the median/typical house from then. You can't even live where you could in 1930 for the same money you could then. You can't rent for what you could in 1930. You can't go to the doctor. You can't buy a car. You can't send your kids to college. There are more things you just can't do today on 1930-equivalent money. Need I go on?
- gamegoblin 6y ago
  To re-iterate my original statement: "Is it not the case that we could work 15 hours per week and maintain the lifestyle that was prevalent during Keynes' day?" I'm explicitly talking about living as if it were the 1930s. No internet. No cable. No air conditioning. No eating at restaurants multiple times per week. Small house. No college. Maybe no car. So you say I am equating the cheapest houses today with the median back then, which is absolutely correct. That is exactly what I am trying to say. You can live a median 1930s lifestyle for dirt cheap today. That house was built in 1948 and is basically the same as most other middle class houses built in that time period. In 1930, fewer than 1% of people graduated from college. So if you want to live a median 1930s lifestyle, you probably don't have to worry about sending your kids to college. You don't need college to command the $13/hr wage that is necessary to live this lifestyle anyway. Only 48% of households owned a car in 1930, so if you want a median 1930s lifestyle, that may involve not owning a car. And if you do own a car, a used car from 2005 can be had for $1000 and trounces any middle class 1930s car from that era in every metric.
  - pmiller2 6y ago
    Okay, sketch out a 1930s New York City lifestyle in New York City, then. Tell me how I can go to the doctor. Tell me how I can continue to live, if I'm a diabetic. Tell me how I, personally, can live, considering I have asthma, and albuterol wasn't discovered until the 1960s (and is much more expensive now than it was then). I guess I can save money by not buying a radio, because there's nothing worthwhile on there anymore, anyway.
    - gamegoblin 6y ago
      Obviously, major cities' housing costs have increased beyond the rate of inflation due to a variety of reasons, chief among them being the finite amount of land and the growing number of people (not just population of the city, but rather the growing number of people who want to move to the city, which raises prices due to supply and demand). But the general point still stands that if one wants to live on 15 hours/week, as Keynes' suggested, it's certainly possible to do so (essentially everywhere but major metropolises) if one maintains a 1930s lifestyle.
      - pmiller2 6y ago
        Okay, so, you can't live in NYC like you can in the 1930s. Where else can't you live? Or, rather, must one live in the middle of nowhere to live the 1930s idyll? If that's all you want to claim, then I claim I can live like a hunter gatherer from 19300 BCE in the middle of the woods. Big deal. You haven't shown me anything. Did you want to even begin to address how I can go to the doctor? Or are we conveniently leaving that out? I don't think you have even begun to touch the "general point."
        gamegoblin 6y ago
        As I stated in my previous comment, most major cities (i.e. national or global hubs) are probably implausible due to increased demand. But there are literally hundreds of mid-sized cities and thousands of smaller cities where it's as simple as described. Of course, you know this, and you know that's what I was saying, so I'm going to assume you're not really debating in good faith (or are seriously misreading what I'm saying). Edit: I had a peek at your comment history and saw this pattern repeated with other people. I regret getting involved in this thread.

pmiller2 6y ago

But, that's not the "typical" house anymore. You're equating the very cheapest houses and apartments today with the median/typical house from then. You can't even live where you could in 1930 for the same money you could then. You can't rent for what you could in 1930. You can't go to the doctor. You can't buy a car. You can't send your kids to college. There are more things you just can't do today on 1930-equivalent money. Need I go on?

gamegoblin 6y ago
To re-iterate my original statement: "Is it not the case that we could work 15 hours per week and maintain the lifestyle that was prevalent during Keynes' day?" I'm explicitly talking about living as if it were the 1930s. No internet. No cable. No air conditioning. No eating at restaurants multiple times per week. Small house. No college. Maybe no car. So you say I am equating the cheapest houses today with the median back then, which is absolutely correct. That is exactly what I am trying to say. You can live a median 1930s lifestyle for dirt cheap today. That house was built in 1948 and is basically the same as most other middle class houses built in that time period. In 1930, fewer than 1% of people graduated from college. So if you want to live a median 1930s lifestyle, you probably don't have to worry about sending your kids to college. You don't need college to command the $13/hr wage that is necessary to live this lifestyle anyway. Only 48% of households owned a car in 1930, so if you want a median 1930s lifestyle, that may involve not owning a car. And if you do own a car, a used car from 2005 can be had for $1000 and trounces any middle class 1930s car from that era in every metric.
- pmiller2 6y ago
  Okay, sketch out a 1930s New York City lifestyle in New York City, then. Tell me how I can go to the doctor. Tell me how I can continue to live, if I'm a diabetic. Tell me how I, personally, can live, considering I have asthma, and albuterol wasn't discovered until the 1960s (and is much more expensive now than it was then). I guess I can save money by not buying a radio, because there's nothing worthwhile on there anymore, anyway.
  - gamegoblin 6y ago
    Obviously, major cities' housing costs have increased beyond the rate of inflation due to a variety of reasons, chief among them being the finite amount of land and the growing number of people (not just population of the city, but rather the growing number of people who want to move to the city, which raises prices due to supply and demand). But the general point still stands that if one wants to live on 15 hours/week, as Keynes' suggested, it's certainly possible to do so (essentially everywhere but major metropolises) if one maintains a 1930s lifestyle.
    - pmiller2 6y ago
      Okay, so, you can't live in NYC like you can in the 1930s. Where else can't you live? Or, rather, must one live in the middle of nowhere to live the 1930s idyll? If that's all you want to claim, then I claim I can live like a hunter gatherer from 19300 BCE in the middle of the woods. Big deal. You haven't shown me anything. Did you want to even begin to address how I can go to the doctor? Or are we conveniently leaving that out? I don't think you have even begun to touch the "general point."
      - gamegoblin 6y ago
        As I stated in my previous comment, most major cities (i.e. national or global hubs) are probably implausible due to increased demand. But there are literally hundreds of mid-sized cities and thousands of smaller cities where it's as simple as described. Of course, you know this, and you know that's what I was saying, so I'm going to assume you're not really debating in good faith (or are seriously misreading what I'm saying). Edit: I had a peek at your comment history and saw this pattern repeated with other people. I regret getting involved in this thread.