3 ms·
Definitely have much higher costs to living alone. Some hidden - some not. Having mostly lived alone for the last 10 years, all of these things are obvious to m
by bradlys 5y ago
Definitely have much higher costs to living alone. Some hidden - some not. Having mostly lived alone for the last 10 years, all of these things are obvious to me and not-obvious to my partnered, family’d, and roommated peers. The surgery thing is real - part of my not looking into one surgery I should do is because I live alone and won’t have anyone to take care of me. I might be able to get a friend to drive me from the hospital but that’s it.
Where I am - I spend more on rent than some of my peers spend in their entire month. I’m not living in a lavish place either - just a 400sqft inlaw unit in the backyard of a 4000sqft lot. This is due to the lack of housing for single people and communities built around it. Unfortunately, many developers out there aren’t interested. After all - why go after a bunch of individual customers when you can target groups of customers just as easily? (Cost is effectively same to get a group of four to purchase than an individual - but now you can sell 4x more) These could be addressed but I don’t think our capitalistic society is willing to do such because the incentive structure isn’t there. They’re always seeking maximum profit and single people will continue to be pointless to cater to - especially since single people often will buy the group thing because there are no other options. So you can now sell 4x the product to just an individual - huge win. Rig the market further and support this fucked up system as much as possible. No reason to ever change this structure because it maximizes draining bank accounts. So while it makes sense for the companies - it completely fucks the consumers. This is where capitalism fails so often in the real world and deserves all of its criticism.
- novok 5y agoPart of that lack of 'single person housing' is a zoning issue. It sets minimum sizes and makes building multi-family units literally illegal. Thus with things needing to be a minimum size and multi-family units illegal, developers only go for what is economically viable in an area, which is the SFH. The most capital efficient kind of construction is actually the large wooden house designed as a fourplex. You also get more total rent & $$$ sold from multi-units than you do from a single family house, because multi-units are more land efficient. If developers were not limited, you would see a lot more of them.
- bradlys 5y ago> If developers were not limited, you would see a lot more of them. I agree to some extent. In the end - I blame developers and the political climate of demanding that your house always appreciates in value... Which is beneficial for existing homeowners who choose to not move and for developers. However, it's not beneficial to those who do not own. I think capitalism, a lack of social safety net, and people looking for anyway to get even a small win in our horrible system is why we see such unjust dynamics in the market.