3 ms·

Hahah! New this would be by Brooks before I clicked. Strongly disagree with this entire argument. Americans work more for less than their parents did, and mu

Hahah! New this would be by Brooks before I clicked. Strongly disagree with this entire argument. Americans work more for less than their parents did, and much of the rest of the western world.

Retric 4y ago
Only if you ignore the increases in quality over time. Yes people pay more for housing, however in 1975 the average American home was 560 Sq Ft/person in 2015 it hit 1058 Sq Ft/person. https://thefioneers.com/average-home-size/ https://thefioneers.com/average-home-size/ So people are paying more for housing, they are also getting a lot more of it. Similarly people keep moving to expensive cities which shockingly have expensive housing. It costs exponentially more, but cancer is killing fewer people today than a generation ago. https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/dcpc/research/update-on-cancer-deaths/index.htm https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/dcpc/research/update-on-cancer-de...
- scythe 4y ago
  Houses got bigger because they're not allowed to be small. Most cities have minimum lot sizes. Even Houston, the libertarian poster child, has a minimum lot size of, IIRC, 5000 square feet. People move to expensive cities because that's where the jobs are. Nobody moves to Fort Bragg, even though it has practically the same climate and coastline as San Francisco, because there's no money to be made. Handwaving these economic forces away as "quality increases" is misleading.
  - sidewndr46 4y ago
    Not only are there minimum lot sizes, there are minimum square footage mandates in effect for much of America. Also as a home builder once you realize how expensive the permitting process can be you're suddenly motivated to build big. The permitting doesn't scale with structure size, it is fixed in most areas.
- sidewndr46 4y ago
  I don't really see how square feet per person is "more". Where I live for example it's an actually a detriment as I'm taxed based off the habitable square footage. This just further increases the cost of living.
  - yamtaddle 4y ago
    Lots of these "better" giant houses (at least in the US) waste tons of space. You can feel like you have more space in a house significantly smaller if the layout is at all thoughtful. I've owned houses with 500+ square feet that were practically unusable. The finishes have also gotten worse, in many ways. These expensive McMansions have worse trim, doors (interior and exterior), and sometimes flooring than cheap working-class houses in the '60s and '70s. Better windows I guess. At least as far as energy efficiency goes. Better insulation. Basically if code says it has to be better, it is, and everything else is worse.
    - sidewndr46 4y ago
      did you mean to say 5000+ ? Or were you just saying that around 500 square foot was unusable?
      - yamtaddle 4y ago
        500, maybe somewhat more, that was effectively unusable. Weird transition spaces that you can't really do anything with and also lack walls to put anything against (friggin' open floorplans) eating up 100 or more square feet, a front room of perhaps 300 sqft laid out so poorly that it was hard to do much with it (and so extremely open that it defied repurposing), a master bedroom that they'd decided to make the size of an entire three-car garage (that's what was under it) because they couldn't think of anything else to do with that space, I guess, in a house where all the other bedrooms were perhaps 1/4 that size, so not some obscene mansion where all the rooms are vastly oversized. That kind of thing.
        sidewndr46 4y ago
- mikem170 4y ago
  But the parent said people worked more. Maybe they didn't want bigger houses, maybe they wanted time with their families, friends, and hobbies. Are more things really adding to our quality of life, or is that just consumerism talking? Lots of families need multiple incomes to pay for those bigger houses, compared to 1975 [0]. And zoning regulations don't allow enough housing to be built in the cities with good job and social opportunities where people would like to live. Seems to be more optimized for investors than families and quality of life. [0] https://listwithclever.com/research/home-price-v-income-historical-study/ https://listwithclever.com/research/home-price-v-income-hist...
  - Retric 4y ago
    He said, “Americans work more for less” working more and getting more suggests some agency. Consumerism isn’t a need. Give up the large house in an expensive area, cellphone, high tech car, computer, cable TV, etc and suddenly you can get by without working so hard just like my parents generation.

Hahah! New this would be by Brooks before I clicked. Strongly disagree with this entire argument. Americans work more for less than their parents did, and much of the rest of the western world.

Retric 4y ago

Only if you ignore the increases in quality over time. Yes people pay more for housing, however in 1975 the average American home was 560 Sq Ft/person in 2015 it hit 1058 Sq Ft/person. https://thefioneers.com/average-home-size/ https://thefioneers.com/average-home-size/ So people are paying more for housing, they are also getting a lot more of it. Similarly people keep moving to expensive cities which shockingly have expensive housing. It costs exponentially more, but cancer is killing fewer people today than a generation ago. https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/dcpc/research/update-on-cancer-deaths/index.htm https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/dcpc/research/update-on-cancer-de...

scythe 4y ago
Houses got bigger because they're not allowed to be small. Most cities have minimum lot sizes. Even Houston, the libertarian poster child, has a minimum lot size of, IIRC, 5000 square feet. People move to expensive cities because that's where the jobs are. Nobody moves to Fort Bragg, even though it has practically the same climate and coastline as San Francisco, because there's no money to be made. Handwaving these economic forces away as "quality increases" is misleading.
- sidewndr46 4y ago
  Not only are there minimum lot sizes, there are minimum square footage mandates in effect for much of America. Also as a home builder once you realize how expensive the permitting process can be you're suddenly motivated to build big. The permitting doesn't scale with structure size, it is fixed in most areas.
sidewndr46 4y ago
I don't really see how square feet per person is "more". Where I live for example it's an actually a detriment as I'm taxed based off the habitable square footage. This just further increases the cost of living.
- yamtaddle 4y ago
  Lots of these "better" giant houses (at least in the US) waste tons of space. You can feel like you have more space in a house significantly smaller if the layout is at all thoughtful. I've owned houses with 500+ square feet that were practically unusable. The finishes have also gotten worse, in many ways. These expensive McMansions have worse trim, doors (interior and exterior), and sometimes flooring than cheap working-class houses in the '60s and '70s. Better windows I guess. At least as far as energy efficiency goes. Better insulation. Basically if code says it has to be better, it is, and everything else is worse.
  - sidewndr46 4y ago
    did you mean to say 5000+ ? Or were you just saying that around 500 square foot was unusable?
    - yamtaddle 4y ago
      500, maybe somewhat more, that was effectively unusable. Weird transition spaces that you can't really do anything with and also lack walls to put anything against (friggin' open floorplans) eating up 100 or more square feet, a front room of perhaps 300 sqft laid out so poorly that it was hard to do much with it (and so extremely open that it defied repurposing), a master bedroom that they'd decided to make the size of an entire three-car garage (that's what was under it) because they couldn't think of anything else to do with that space, I guess, in a house where all the other bedrooms were perhaps 1/4 that size, so not some obscene mansion where all the rooms are vastly oversized. That kind of thing.
      - sidewndr46 4y ago
mikem170 4y ago
But the parent said people worked more. Maybe they didn't want bigger houses, maybe they wanted time with their families, friends, and hobbies. Are more things really adding to our quality of life, or is that just consumerism talking? Lots of families need multiple incomes to pay for those bigger houses, compared to 1975 [0]. And zoning regulations don't allow enough housing to be built in the cities with good job and social opportunities where people would like to live. Seems to be more optimized for investors than families and quality of life. [0] https://listwithclever.com/research/home-price-v-income-historical-study/ https://listwithclever.com/research/home-price-v-income-hist...
- Retric 4y ago
  He said, “Americans work more for less” working more and getting more suggests some agency. Consumerism isn’t a need. Give up the large house in an expensive area, cellphone, high tech car, computer, cable TV, etc and suddenly you can get by without working so hard just like my parents generation.