4 ms·

"Our parents could finance a home and family with one earner, now both parents have to work." The causality might go the other way. When feminism became popul

"Our parents could finance a home and family with one earner, now both parents have to work." The causality might go the other way. When feminism became popular and women entered the workforce, it's not as if more homes got built, more oil was pumped from the ground, more land was discovered, more cars were manufactured, etc. Women did not enter construction and manufacturing trades in large numbers, and the production of homes and natural resources are bounded by natural conditions and regulations, not by labor. So when women enter the workforce wages are pushed down as they compete with men, the price of housing is bid up by two earner families, but production of housing does not go up accordingly. So prices rise and then all households need to have two earners to keep up. The modern economy is primarily not labor bound, it is natural resource and regulation bound, so more labor just results in an arms race where other people need to work harder to keep up. Legislation that mandates maximum work weeks, minimum vacation amounts, and mandatory retirement, might make a lot of sense to avoid the sort of work-hours-prisoners-dilemma we seem to be stuck in.

yummyfajitas 14y ago
But production of housing did go up. A quick google search suggests the increase was from about 1500ft^2 to 2500ft^2 [1], though I can't seem to find the primary source. Eliminating legislation which mandates minimum house sizes, minimum insurance coverage, etc, can also serve to make the cost of living cheaper. If houses smaller than 2000 ft^2 are illegal (which they are in many places), you are obligated to pay more for a house bigger than you need. [1] E.g.: http://www.realtor.org/RMODaily.nsf/pages/News2007032701?OpenDocument http://www.realtor.org/RMODaily.nsf/pages/News2007032701?Ope... or http://www.infoplease.com/askeds/us-home-size.html http://www.infoplease.com/askeds/us-home-size.html)
- bokonist 14y ago
  Yes, housing construction did go up, but it was very uneven. Due to the craziness with the subprime lending there was a lot of housing built in the desserts of the southwest or the outer exurbs of Jacksonsville. If you want to move there you can find homes for really cheap, but good luck finding a job. Also note that even as more homes were being built, the resources to build these homes were getting more expensive due to the price of lumber and copper getting bid up. So even if you can change the zoning laws to allow more building, the price still gets bid up to some extent from the price of the natural resources. I agree of course that these laws enforcing minimum house sizes and minimum lot sizes should be repealed. I think there are all sorts of policy policies that should be enacted to lower the minimum cost of living while preserving quality of life for the things that really matter.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]

yummyfajitas 14y ago

But production of housing did go up. A quick google search suggests the increase was from about 1500ft^2 to 2500ft^2 [1], though I can't seem to find the primary source. Eliminating legislation which mandates minimum house sizes, minimum insurance coverage, etc, can also serve to make the cost of living cheaper. If houses smaller than 2000 ft^2 are illegal (which they are in many places), you are obligated to pay more for a house bigger than you need. [1] E.g.: http://www.realtor.org/RMODaily.nsf/pages/News2007032701?OpenDocument http://www.realtor.org/RMODaily.nsf/pages/News2007032701?Ope... or http://www.infoplease.com/askeds/us-home-size.html http://www.infoplease.com/askeds/us-home-size.html)

bokonist 14y ago
Yes, housing construction did go up, but it was very uneven. Due to the craziness with the subprime lending there was a lot of housing built in the desserts of the southwest or the outer exurbs of Jacksonsville. If you want to move there you can find homes for really cheap, but good luck finding a job. Also note that even as more homes were being built, the resources to build these homes were getting more expensive due to the price of lumber and copper getting bid up. So even if you can change the zoning laws to allow more building, the price still gets bid up to some extent from the price of the natural resources. I agree of course that these laws enforcing minimum house sizes and minimum lot sizes should be repealed. I think there are all sorts of policy policies that should be enacted to lower the minimum cost of living while preserving quality of life for the things that really matter.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]