3 ms·

I only want to add that in 1950 a significant number of homes still did not have indoor plumbing, and I'd guess that a lot of existing housing stock was small s

I only want to add that in 1950 a significant number of homes still did not have indoor plumbing, and I'd guess that a lot of existing housing stock was small square footage. I don't want to say there wasn't housing inflation, but I do think the the nature of housing stock has changed too.

TuringNYC 2y ago
> I do think the the nature of housing stock has changed too. Ultimately it doesnt change the fact of affordability unless one can also find homes w/o indoor plumbing to make up for inflation.
- mlyle 2y ago
  Hedonic adjustments are important but, as you point out, have issues. But, affordability isn't represented well by inflation, either. Median family income in 1950 was equivalent to $45k today; the actual number is $100k. A big part of the issue is that workers stopped benefitting from productivity growth in the mid-1990s. That's what's really made the housing crisis particularly sharp.
  - Cumpiler69 2y ago
    >A big part of the issue is that workers stopped benefitting from productivity growth in the mid-1990s. Distributing the benefits of increased productivity to the workers was never part of the capitalist motto. That was what socialism was for.
    - HideousKojima 2y ago
      Capitalism seems to have done a far better job at that than socialism despite not being an overt goal though
      - Cumpiler69 2y ago
        It has, because people are greedy and self centered and capitalism exploits this better. Nobody's gonna work harder and smarter if they know they'll get the same outcome as those who don't, as per socialism. That's why Europe is falling behind the US at tech innovations. People aren't gonna put in the risk, the grind and the hours if they'll get the same living standards as a unionized tram driver.
        immibis 2y ago
        Pray tell, which tech innovations?
ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago
In our area, it doesn't matter what shape the house is in. Most of the buyers seem to be corporate buyers, and they often gut and rebuild. They pay cash, too, which many sellers like.
tdb7893 2y ago
In a lot of states there was a more than 3x increase in price which I think is hard to justify as a difference in stock. Median square footage for homes now is only 1835 square feet (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEDSQUFEEUS https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEDSQUFEEUS). There are also a lot of arguments like how quality has gone up but building technology has vastly improved. Either way that the price increase is mostly a function of housing quality doesn't seem convincing to me (I've seen really garbage houses go for crazy amounts recently). One example is my grandparents' home was built in the 1930s. It's a small home but in a good location and they said when they were younger it was worth ~200,000$ (I don't know the exact decade they were talking about here but from context it was somewhere in the 50s to 70s). The literal exact same house is now worth around 3,000,000$. The house now needs a lot of work (it actually decreases the value of the land) but the price is still 15x higher.
- tpmoney 2y ago
  > It's a small home but in a good location and they said when they were younger it was worth ~200,000$ (I don't know the exact decade they were talking about here but from context it was somewhere in the 50s to 70s). The literal exact same house is now worth around 3,000,000$. The house now needs a lot of work (it actually decreases the value of the land) but the price is still 15x higher. If this is true, and using 1960 as our middle of the road, then this isn't exactly "egregious". 200k in 1960 is 2.1M today just accounting for inflation. If we use 1950 it's 2.6M and if we use 1970 it's 1.6M. Now sure the house needs work, but I also. bet the area even if it was "good" when they built it in the 1930's how many more people are living in the same location now all vying for the same plots of land? People often gawk at what their parents or their grand parents paid for their houses, but rarely consider what living there would have been like 30 or 60 years ago. I have some relatives that bought a house outside a developing area about 30 years ago that's probably seen an easy 3-4x increase in value (of which only 2x would be accounted for with inflation. But the difference between then and now is that when they bought that home, it was 1 of 6 on a street in the middle of nowhere, surrounded by fields and undeveloped land. There was a single main road that ran through "town" about 5 minutes away that had 2 gas stations, and 3 fast food stores and a grocery store. For anything else you were driving 20-40 minutes into the nearest city (or around). They commuted every day 45 minutes into the city. Today that same area is bursting with new homes, there's now 2 exits / entrances onto the highway within 10 minutes of their house, the main street is jam packed with businesses and filled with strip malls and shopping centers with multiple grocery stores, and a good chunk of the main "national brands" you might expect (Home Depot, Lowes, Walmart, Gamestop etc). And just about anything they don't have along that main street and it's adjoining centers can be found 15 minutes away in the shopping centers and neighborhoods that sprung up between them and the city. In short, the house they live in today is in the sort of place some folks looking to move into a thriving and growing area would want to move into, and the house they bought 30 years ago was in the sort of backwoods sticks that such people would be avoiding as "too remote".
dataviz1000 2y ago
I'm curious how much the equivalent modern home would cost in 1950? Also the medium salary has almost doubled. I suspect modern homes are a much better value although more expensive.
immibis 2y ago
If it was significantly cheaper, I'd do my own plumbing. Wouldn't you? Much better than having no home at all. But it's not even an option - I'm required to pay for the plumbing.

TuringNYC 2y ago

> I do think the the nature of housing stock has changed too. Ultimately it doesnt change the fact of affordability unless one can also find homes w/o indoor plumbing to make up for inflation.

mlyle 2y ago
Hedonic adjustments are important but, as you point out, have issues. But, affordability isn't represented well by inflation, either. Median family income in 1950 was equivalent to $45k today; the actual number is $100k. A big part of the issue is that workers stopped benefitting from productivity growth in the mid-1990s. That's what's really made the housing crisis particularly sharp.
- Cumpiler69 2y ago
  >A big part of the issue is that workers stopped benefitting from productivity growth in the mid-1990s. Distributing the benefits of increased productivity to the workers was never part of the capitalist motto. That was what socialism was for.
  - HideousKojima 2y ago
    Capitalism seems to have done a far better job at that than socialism despite not being an overt goal though
    - Cumpiler69 2y ago
      It has, because people are greedy and self centered and capitalism exploits this better. Nobody's gonna work harder and smarter if they know they'll get the same outcome as those who don't, as per socialism. That's why Europe is falling behind the US at tech innovations. People aren't gonna put in the risk, the grind and the hours if they'll get the same living standards as a unionized tram driver.
      - immibis 2y ago
        Pray tell, which tech innovations?

ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago

In our area, it doesn't matter what shape the house is in. Most of the buyers seem to be corporate buyers, and they often gut and rebuild. They pay cash, too, which many sellers like.

tdb7893 2y ago

In a lot of states there was a more than 3x increase in price which I think is hard to justify as a difference in stock. Median square footage for homes now is only 1835 square feet (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEDSQUFEEUS https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEDSQUFEEUS). There are also a lot of arguments like how quality has gone up but building technology has vastly improved. Either way that the price increase is mostly a function of housing quality doesn't seem convincing to me (I've seen really garbage houses go for crazy amounts recently). One example is my grandparents' home was built in the 1930s. It's a small home but in a good location and they said when they were younger it was worth ~200,000$ (I don't know the exact decade they were talking about here but from context it was somewhere in the 50s to 70s). The literal exact same house is now worth around 3,000,000$. The house now needs a lot of work (it actually decreases the value of the land) but the price is still 15x higher.

tpmoney 2y ago
> It's a small home but in a good location and they said when they were younger it was worth ~200,000$ (I don't know the exact decade they were talking about here but from context it was somewhere in the 50s to 70s). The literal exact same house is now worth around 3,000,000$. The house now needs a lot of work (it actually decreases the value of the land) but the price is still 15x higher. If this is true, and using 1960 as our middle of the road, then this isn't exactly "egregious". 200k in 1960 is 2.1M today just accounting for inflation. If we use 1950 it's 2.6M and if we use 1970 it's 1.6M. Now sure the house needs work, but I also. bet the area even if it was "good" when they built it in the 1930's how many more people are living in the same location now all vying for the same plots of land? People often gawk at what their parents or their grand parents paid for their houses, but rarely consider what living there would have been like 30 or 60 years ago. I have some relatives that bought a house outside a developing area about 30 years ago that's probably seen an easy 3-4x increase in value (of which only 2x would be accounted for with inflation. But the difference between then and now is that when they bought that home, it was 1 of 6 on a street in the middle of nowhere, surrounded by fields and undeveloped land. There was a single main road that ran through "town" about 5 minutes away that had 2 gas stations, and 3 fast food stores and a grocery store. For anything else you were driving 20-40 minutes into the nearest city (or around). They commuted every day 45 minutes into the city. Today that same area is bursting with new homes, there's now 2 exits / entrances onto the highway within 10 minutes of their house, the main street is jam packed with businesses and filled with strip malls and shopping centers with multiple grocery stores, and a good chunk of the main "national brands" you might expect (Home Depot, Lowes, Walmart, Gamestop etc). And just about anything they don't have along that main street and it's adjoining centers can be found 15 minutes away in the shopping centers and neighborhoods that sprung up between them and the city. In short, the house they live in today is in the sort of place some folks looking to move into a thriving and growing area would want to move into, and the house they bought 30 years ago was in the sort of backwoods sticks that such people would be avoiding as "too remote".

dataviz1000 2y ago

I'm curious how much the equivalent modern home would cost in 1950? Also the medium salary has almost doubled. I suspect modern homes are a much better value although more expensive.

immibis 2y ago

If it was significantly cheaper, I'd do my own plumbing. Wouldn't you? Much better than having no home at all. But it's not even an option - I'm required to pay for the plumbing.