4 ms·

The median monthly rent for houses and apartments in the U.S. in 1970 was $108, or around $930 in today's dollars. So, in today's dollars, that would be $11,160

The median monthly rent for houses and apartments in the U.S. in 1970 was $108, or around $930 in today's dollars. So, in today's dollars, that would be $11,160/year. Median household income in 1970 was $9,870, or $84,714 in today's dollars. Median rent in the us today is around $1,750, or around $21,000/year. Today's median income in the us is around $89,000. So, housing cost has nearly doubled, while wages have only risen by about 5%. And that's just housing. I'm sure the math for healthcare and education costs is even more grim.

encoderer 4mo ago
You seem to be using family income and not household income for 1970. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEFAINUSA672N https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEFAINUSA672N
treis 4mo ago
What we spend on housing has doubled. That doesn't mean the cost has doubled. It means that we buy a lot more housing than we used to. Real estate cost is local and there are parts of america where the prices have gone nuts. But there's a lot more where it hasn't and housing is affordable.
- selectodude 4mo ago
  Both are true. We’ve made cheap housing illegal and we’ve demanded ever higher quality housing. We need to allowed for revealed preferences. In developers we trust.
- bluefirebrand 4mo ago
  > But there's a lot more where it hasn't and housing is affordable In many of those places salaries have been stagnant or work has dried up So we have a weird situation where someone living in a big city with a large salary is priced out of real estate by high prices, and someone living in a smaller city with more reasonable real estate prices is priced out by a lower income It's not universal of course, but it's a squeeze that a lot of people are feeling
  - treis 4mo ago
    Most of the sunbelt isn't like that. You can buy a 4 bedroom house in Atlanta for 270k and a 2/1 for like 160 and salaries are fine.
SoftTalker 4mo ago
Supply of housing has not kept pace with population since then. So you have more people chasing relatively fewer houses. Also compare a 1960s or 1970s house to one built today. Today's houses are bigger and much more luxuriously appointed, with gourmet appliances, stone countertops, multi-head showers, walk-in closets, huge bathrooms, etc. Once the boomer generation dies off or goes into assisted living you'll see a lot of those 1970s houses coming back on the market.
- ghaff 4mo ago
  The house I live in has one small bathroom. It was probably built before there was indoor plumbing. (Early 1800s.) A back of the mind concern when the day comes I end up selling but not much I can do about it. The house has had a lot of upgrades over time but some things can't be easily changed.
- bluefirebrand 4mo ago
  > Once the boomer generation dies off or goes into assisted living you'll see a lot of those 1970s houses coming back on the market But will they be affordable? Or will they be bought up by real estate conglomerates to be rented to the younger generations?
  - SoftTalker 4mo ago
    More supply should make them more affordable. Buying a house was never "easy." Some people seem to think that minimum wage workers were buying houses back in the 1970s and that wasn't the case. At all.
win311fwg 4mo ago
> So, housing cost has nearly doubled That is in line with expectations: 1. The average house is ~60% larger than in 1970. More house equates to higher costs. 2. In 1970, the typical working-class man would spend time in a public house 5-6 nights a week. Today, third places are nearly nonexistent. Houses, largely driven by the internet opening it up to the world, has become more than a place to eat and sleep. Monetary spending is naturally directed to where one spends their time and energy.
- pickleglitch 4mo ago
  This is only part of the picture. Part of the reason houses are so much larger today is cultural, but I would argue a larger part is that economies of scale scale make it more profitable to build larger houses, so that's what developers build. Also, the average cost of raw, undeveloped land in 1970 was about $197/acre, or about $1690/acre in today's dollars. Today the average cost of raw, undeveloped land is about $4,350/acre. All of the other costs associated with building a house are higher as well. There are more regulations, materials are more expensive, etc. Labor is probably the only part of the equation that isn't much different after adjusting for inflation. So it's not just that we all decided to buy larger houses and that's why they are more expensive. There are a lot of structural issues at play.
  - win311fwg 4mo ago
    > So it's not just that we all decided to buy larger houses If we haven't all decided to buy larger houses, who is buying them? Are you suggesting that they all sit empty? That data doesn't support that. Life isn't like Field of Dreams. If you build it, they won't necessarily come. You have to offer what the buyer wants, else they'll say "no thanks".

encoderer 4mo ago

You seem to be using family income and not household income for 1970. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEFAINUSA672N https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEFAINUSA672N

treis 4mo ago

What we spend on housing has doubled. That doesn't mean the cost has doubled. It means that we buy a lot more housing than we used to. Real estate cost is local and there are parts of america where the prices have gone nuts. But there's a lot more where it hasn't and housing is affordable.

selectodude 4mo ago
Both are true. We’ve made cheap housing illegal and we’ve demanded ever higher quality housing. We need to allowed for revealed preferences. In developers we trust.
bluefirebrand 4mo ago
> But there's a lot more where it hasn't and housing is affordable In many of those places salaries have been stagnant or work has dried up So we have a weird situation where someone living in a big city with a large salary is priced out of real estate by high prices, and someone living in a smaller city with more reasonable real estate prices is priced out by a lower income It's not universal of course, but it's a squeeze that a lot of people are feeling
- treis 4mo ago
  Most of the sunbelt isn't like that. You can buy a 4 bedroom house in Atlanta for 270k and a 2/1 for like 160 and salaries are fine.

SoftTalker 4mo ago

Supply of housing has not kept pace with population since then. So you have more people chasing relatively fewer houses. Also compare a 1960s or 1970s house to one built today. Today's houses are bigger and much more luxuriously appointed, with gourmet appliances, stone countertops, multi-head showers, walk-in closets, huge bathrooms, etc. Once the boomer generation dies off or goes into assisted living you'll see a lot of those 1970s houses coming back on the market.

ghaff 4mo ago
The house I live in has one small bathroom. It was probably built before there was indoor plumbing. (Early 1800s.) A back of the mind concern when the day comes I end up selling but not much I can do about it. The house has had a lot of upgrades over time but some things can't be easily changed.
bluefirebrand 4mo ago
> Once the boomer generation dies off or goes into assisted living you'll see a lot of those 1970s houses coming back on the market But will they be affordable? Or will they be bought up by real estate conglomerates to be rented to the younger generations?
- SoftTalker 4mo ago
  More supply should make them more affordable. Buying a house was never "easy." Some people seem to think that minimum wage workers were buying houses back in the 1970s and that wasn't the case. At all.

win311fwg 4mo ago

> So, housing cost has nearly doubled That is in line with expectations: 1. The average house is ~60% larger than in 1970. More house equates to higher costs. 2. In 1970, the typical working-class man would spend time in a public house 5-6 nights a week. Today, third places are nearly nonexistent. Houses, largely driven by the internet opening it up to the world, has become more than a place to eat and sleep. Monetary spending is naturally directed to where one spends their time and energy.

pickleglitch 4mo ago
This is only part of the picture. Part of the reason houses are so much larger today is cultural, but I would argue a larger part is that economies of scale scale make it more profitable to build larger houses, so that's what developers build. Also, the average cost of raw, undeveloped land in 1970 was about $197/acre, or about $1690/acre in today's dollars. Today the average cost of raw, undeveloped land is about $4,350/acre. All of the other costs associated with building a house are higher as well. There are more regulations, materials are more expensive, etc. Labor is probably the only part of the equation that isn't much different after adjusting for inflation. So it's not just that we all decided to buy larger houses and that's why they are more expensive. There are a lot of structural issues at play.
- win311fwg 4mo ago
  > So it's not just that we all decided to buy larger houses If we haven't all decided to buy larger houses, who is buying them? Are you suggesting that they all sit empty? That data doesn't support that. Life isn't like Field of Dreams. If you build it, they won't necessarily come. You have to offer what the buyer wants, else they'll say "no thanks".