3 ms·

The income/house ratio was way way lower back then. Even if your parents bought a house twice as expensive, it would be cheaper. They could have used the extra

The income/house ratio was way way lower back then. Even if your parents bought a house twice as expensive, it would be cheaper. They could have used the extra money on insulation or piping or whatever the difference was, they just didn't. Besides this is like saying televisions were all crappy black and white units so your parents didn't have it so easy. But the hedonic adjustment is just that, you can't buy a crappy unit now so you pretend the difference matters. What went for a house then has got to be the standard, surely.

0xBDB 4y ago
If what went for a house back then is the standard then the problem for Gen Z is solved. You can afford a 1950s house, a car built to 1950s standards, and to send 2 of your 3 kids (probably not the girl) to college one one income, with plenty left over that your Boomer parents (or grandparents possibly) didn't have. The point is the hedonic adjustment. It's not that the kids don't live like the Boomers because they can't, it's that they don't live like the Boomers because both the government and the market wouldn't let them if they wanted to, which they don't.
- yobbo 4y ago
  Eh, again no. > You can afford a 1950s house Where I am from in Europe, most houses from 1950s are in use. The apartment buildings are generally constructed to higher standards than modern ones (thicker concrete, less use of aerated concrete, no plasterboard interior walls, and so on). Apartment buildings from maybe 1890-1940 are considered premium due to better architecture, higher ceilings, robustness etc. New buildings to those standards are simply not possible. Old buildings have been continually updated with amenities; water and sewage, central heating, internet. The cost of these are rounding errors compared to the market value. Modern buildings are cost-optimized to a whole new level. If you honestly have difficulties understanding this; it's equivalent to comparing modern flatpack furnitures with semi-handbuilt ones from 1950s factories. The cost in man-hours and materials of modern furnitures is a fraction of the old ones.

0xBDB 4y ago

If what went for a house back then is the standard then the problem for Gen Z is solved. You can afford a 1950s house, a car built to 1950s standards, and to send 2 of your 3 kids (probably not the girl) to college one one income, with plenty left over that your Boomer parents (or grandparents possibly) didn't have. The point is the hedonic adjustment. It's not that the kids don't live like the Boomers because they can't, it's that they don't live like the Boomers because both the government and the market wouldn't let them if they wanted to, which they don't.

yobbo 4y ago
Eh, again no. > You can afford a 1950s house Where I am from in Europe, most houses from 1950s are in use. The apartment buildings are generally constructed to higher standards than modern ones (thicker concrete, less use of aerated concrete, no plasterboard interior walls, and so on). Apartment buildings from maybe 1890-1940 are considered premium due to better architecture, higher ceilings, robustness etc. New buildings to those standards are simply not possible. Old buildings have been continually updated with amenities; water and sewage, central heating, internet. The cost of these are rounding errors compared to the market value. Modern buildings are cost-optimized to a whole new level. If you honestly have difficulties understanding this; it's equivalent to comparing modern flatpack furnitures with semi-handbuilt ones from 1950s factories. The cost in man-hours and materials of modern furnitures is a fraction of the old ones.