4 ms·

The average house sold in 1946 cost $5.25K. The median salary at the time was $3K. The average house sold today costs $374K. The median salary is $51K. You ca

The average house sold in 1946 cost $5.25K. The median salary at the time was $3K. The average house sold today costs $374K. The median salary is $51K. You can argue that those houses that were sold back then were smaller, but they were also made of vastly better materials than modern home construction, and it's not like people even have the opportunity of buying those smaller homes unless they want to live in a slum.

kitten_mittens_ 5y ago
I agree with the sentiment, but what was the median house price v. the average?
- noasaservice 5y ago
  A median is one such average. By wanting to know the mean or the range shows that you're trying to cherrypick the result you want. > The average house sold in 1946 cost 1.75X. The median salary was X. > The average house sold in 2022 cost 7.33Y. The median salary is Y. Its clear from all the communications, unionizations, Great Resignation, and more that wages are completely broken. And that above shows what it looks like. We're one of the lucky ones. We're finalizing our recent house purchase. First time homebuyer. $375k , which was at the top of our budget. I make $150k, which is still a 2.5 factor differential... Which is .75 ABOVE what it would have been in the post-war boom 1946. Im in my 40's, and its taken me 20+ years to actually get enough of a footing to even look at a proper house. I feel immensely sad for all younger. Can't afford a $600/mo mortgage so they're stuck with $1000 rents. Loans are for people to borrow money when they don't need money.
  - xur17 5y ago
    > A median is one such average. By wanting to know the mean or the range shows that you're trying to cherrypick the result you want. I think GP is just trying to make sure we're comparing apples to apples. To me it almost comes across as you cherry picking data (average house price vs median salary).
    - MisterBastahrd 5y ago
      It's just the data that's available. The median house price so far this year is over $390K, by the way. The earlier value was for last year.
      - kitten_mittens_ 5y ago
        Q1 of 2022 is just shy of $430K according to the St. Louis Fed.
    - kitten_mittens_ 5y ago
      That's where I was going, yeah. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=OBTh https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=OBTh only has data for median house prices from 1963, and household income from the mid '80s. The spread growing isn't heartening.
poutine 5y ago
While housing has indeed gotten more expensive you can't compare absolute prices. First you're getting a vastly different product today than in 1946. Consumer demands are far higher too. Also to compare affordability the metric for most people would be the median percentage case of mortgage payments vs the persons take home pay. When measured this way it's been hovering around 30% for the past 40 years in the UK. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-house-prices-unlikely-crash-craig-beesley-/ https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-house-prices-unlikely-cra...
- king-geedorah 5y ago
  The data is inherently skewed. You only have a mortgage if you can afford the down payment in the first place and so of course it’ll follow the age old rule of 1/3 of your income. This doesn’t capture how housing supply hasn’t followed population growth/ all the people stuck paying rent in perpetuity.
- CraigJPerry 5y ago
  >> First you're getting a vastly different product today than in 1946 Is that true? Something like 40% of the UK housing stock was built pre-WW2. Sure they’ll no longer have a coal bunker and they most likely have had insulation upgrades etc. but a pre-WW2 house in 1946 is still a pre-WW2 house today. The modern build will have less living space, predominately through smaller room sizes but should be cheaper to heat. >> Also to compare affordability the metric for most people would be the median percentage case of mortgage payments vs the persons take home pay That lops off all the people who can’t afford a mortgage so i dont think that logic works.
  - hackerfromthefu 5y ago
    Yes its true, see details in this post https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31156040 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31156040
- HWR_14 5y ago
  > First you're getting a vastly different product today than in 1946. Are you? You're getting a place to live and property you own.
YATA1 5y ago
>but they were also made of vastly better materials than modern home construction No way this is even close to being true. Newer houses with all the advancements in materials and construction science are much better than the post-war garbage that was spewed out. I made a small fortune in my early 20s fixing and renovating those post-war houses. They're almost universally junk in comparison.

kitten_mittens_ 5y ago

I agree with the sentiment, but what was the median house price v. the average?

noasaservice 5y ago
A median is one such average. By wanting to know the mean or the range shows that you're trying to cherrypick the result you want. > The average house sold in 1946 cost 1.75X. The median salary was X. > The average house sold in 2022 cost 7.33Y. The median salary is Y. Its clear from all the communications, unionizations, Great Resignation, and more that wages are completely broken. And that above shows what it looks like. We're one of the lucky ones. We're finalizing our recent house purchase. First time homebuyer. $375k , which was at the top of our budget. I make $150k, which is still a 2.5 factor differential... Which is .75 ABOVE what it would have been in the post-war boom 1946. Im in my 40's, and its taken me 20+ years to actually get enough of a footing to even look at a proper house. I feel immensely sad for all younger. Can't afford a $600/mo mortgage so they're stuck with $1000 rents. Loans are for people to borrow money when they don't need money.
- xur17 5y ago
  > A median is one such average. By wanting to know the mean or the range shows that you're trying to cherrypick the result you want. I think GP is just trying to make sure we're comparing apples to apples. To me it almost comes across as you cherry picking data (average house price vs median salary).
  - MisterBastahrd 5y ago
    It's just the data that's available. The median house price so far this year is over $390K, by the way. The earlier value was for last year.
    - kitten_mittens_ 5y ago
      Q1 of 2022 is just shy of $430K according to the St. Louis Fed.
  - kitten_mittens_ 5y ago
    That's where I was going, yeah. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=OBTh https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=OBTh only has data for median house prices from 1963, and household income from the mid '80s. The spread growing isn't heartening.

poutine 5y ago

While housing has indeed gotten more expensive you can't compare absolute prices. First you're getting a vastly different product today than in 1946. Consumer demands are far higher too. Also to compare affordability the metric for most people would be the median percentage case of mortgage payments vs the persons take home pay. When measured this way it's been hovering around 30% for the past 40 years in the UK. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-house-prices-unlikely-crash-craig-beesley-/ https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-house-prices-unlikely-cra...

king-geedorah 5y ago
The data is inherently skewed. You only have a mortgage if you can afford the down payment in the first place and so of course it’ll follow the age old rule of 1/3 of your income. This doesn’t capture how housing supply hasn’t followed population growth/ all the people stuck paying rent in perpetuity.
CraigJPerry 5y ago
>> First you're getting a vastly different product today than in 1946 Is that true? Something like 40% of the UK housing stock was built pre-WW2. Sure they’ll no longer have a coal bunker and they most likely have had insulation upgrades etc. but a pre-WW2 house in 1946 is still a pre-WW2 house today. The modern build will have less living space, predominately through smaller room sizes but should be cheaper to heat. >> Also to compare affordability the metric for most people would be the median percentage case of mortgage payments vs the persons take home pay That lops off all the people who can’t afford a mortgage so i dont think that logic works.
- hackerfromthefu 5y ago
  Yes its true, see details in this post https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31156040 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31156040
HWR_14 5y ago
> First you're getting a vastly different product today than in 1946. Are you? You're getting a place to live and property you own.

YATA1 5y ago

>but they were also made of vastly better materials than modern home construction No way this is even close to being true. Newer houses with all the advancements in materials and construction science are much better than the post-war garbage that was spewed out. I made a small fortune in my early 20s fixing and renovating those post-war houses. They're almost universally junk in comparison.