4 ms·

I doubt it. You can't exactly mass-produce houses or land, so it seems that the gap will only grow as factory efficiency rises.

dalke 12y ago
Average size of a home in the US is 2,600 sq. ft (2013), says http://money.cnn.com/2014/06/04/real_estate/american-home-size/ http://money.cnn.com/2014/06/04/real_estate/american-home-si... . 40 years previous it was 1,725 sq. ft. The number of people per household has dropped, though only by a little. (2.63 now and 2.7 in the early 1980s. FWIW, in 1950 it was 3.37. See http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0884238.html http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0884238.html and http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html .) So something has changed to encourage people to buy larger homes for the same number of people.
- stegosaurus 12y ago
  I've never really found looking at the 'average' (be it median or mean) experience to be very useful here, though. In the UK something like 30% of homes are owner occupied with no mortgage. But at the bottom, millions are completely stuck struggling to even pay the rent, never mind even think about saving any money or getting the income multiplier / job security / deposit required to start along that path. Far more relevant is how accessible the bottom rung is, and whether that top portion (and so the average) are simply propped up by legions of modern day serfs. In the UK in particular I'd be happy to build a wooden shack on a bit of agricultural land near to some utilities, maintain it well and stay out of others' way. Capital costs would be incredibly low. But then there are the costs of jumping through regulatory hoops. Or simply being shut down by a judgement that your society says you have to live in a city at ten times the cost, or else. Our version of poverty is 'death by bureaucracy'. The welfare state has created a situation in which many are simply incapable of fending for themselves - and the results when the state turns its back (google for 'UK benefit sanctions' for more information) are truly despicable.
  - dalke 12y ago
    That was to get a base ground truth to establish that there was something to consider, and that I'm not babbling nonsense. If you have better numbers, I would be glad to see them. It's well known that housing sizes are going up in the US, and one of the associated terms is 'McMansion'. But name-calling like that makes for boring, go-nowhere threads. The average residential size per capita in the UK is about 1/2 of the US. http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/how-big-is-a-house http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/how-big-is-a-house . That Independent (and other sources) go on to point out that the UK has "the smallest properties in Europe following the end of national guidelines in 1980", see http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/rabbithutch-britain-growing-health-concerns-as-uk-sets-record-for-smallest-properties-in-europe-9544450.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/rabbithutch-b... . See also http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14916580 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14916580 if you want another news source. While you attribute UK's 77sq.m/person to the "welfare state", the Dutch and Danish welfare states have 115 and 137 sq.m/person. (UK has 255 people/sq.km, the Netherlands 409, and Denmark 128, so it's not a simple matter of density which causes the difference.) In Sweden, where I live, there's been a huge increase in the amount of space per person. In the 1940s, it was considered spacious for two parents and three children to live in a flat with a kitchen and 2 or 3 other rooms. (See http://poseidon.goteborg.se/sv/Sok-ledigt/Bostadsomraden/Sanna/ http://poseidon.goteborg.se/sv/Sok-ledigt/Bostadsomraden/San... , "Trots sitt syfte är de flesta lägenheterna tvåor eller treor, vilket räknades som en rymlig bostad för en trebarnsfamilj på den tiden.") So I don't understand your objection. You have no counter-evidence, you bring up the UK which has the worst history in this regard, and what information I can find does not back your statement that something as broad as "the welfare state" can be the issue for the UK.
    - stegosaurus 12y ago
      Planning restraint, combined with the way that housing is subsidised directly (rather than say, giving someone money to spend on building a new home). I have nothing against the welfare state - I'd rather see a citizen's income than the nonsense mash of policies we have at present, though. It makes no sense to me that the state should subsidise rental payments to private landlords in perpetuity. We should be building homes and relaxing planning permissions.
mtbcoder 12y ago
In the US, especially in the Midwest, former farm fields are quickly flipped and filled with stick-built homes in mere months. Seems pretty "mass-produced" to me.
gnoway 12y ago
Sure you can, at least with houses: that's what a manufactured/mobile home is. The problem is that in the US a manufactured home is usually considered substandard, low class or otherwise undesirable.
zimbu668 12y ago
>You can't exactly mass-produce houses There are certainly companies trying, depending on your definition of "mass produced". http://www.bluhomes.com/our-process http://www.bluhomes.com/our-process Doesn't seem much cheaper than conventional housing, but they are built inside, so your framing isn't getting rained on before the house is done.

dalke 12y ago

Average size of a home in the US is 2,600 sq. ft (2013), says http://money.cnn.com/2014/06/04/real_estate/american-home-size/ http://money.cnn.com/2014/06/04/real_estate/american-home-si... . 40 years previous it was 1,725 sq. ft. The number of people per household has dropped, though only by a little. (2.63 now and 2.7 in the early 1980s. FWIW, in 1950 it was 3.37. See http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0884238.html http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0884238.html and http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html .) So something has changed to encourage people to buy larger homes for the same number of people.

stegosaurus 12y ago
I've never really found looking at the 'average' (be it median or mean) experience to be very useful here, though. In the UK something like 30% of homes are owner occupied with no mortgage. But at the bottom, millions are completely stuck struggling to even pay the rent, never mind even think about saving any money or getting the income multiplier / job security / deposit required to start along that path. Far more relevant is how accessible the bottom rung is, and whether that top portion (and so the average) are simply propped up by legions of modern day serfs. In the UK in particular I'd be happy to build a wooden shack on a bit of agricultural land near to some utilities, maintain it well and stay out of others' way. Capital costs would be incredibly low. But then there are the costs of jumping through regulatory hoops. Or simply being shut down by a judgement that your society says you have to live in a city at ten times the cost, or else. Our version of poverty is 'death by bureaucracy'. The welfare state has created a situation in which many are simply incapable of fending for themselves - and the results when the state turns its back (google for 'UK benefit sanctions' for more information) are truly despicable.
- dalke 12y ago
  That was to get a base ground truth to establish that there was something to consider, and that I'm not babbling nonsense. If you have better numbers, I would be glad to see them. It's well known that housing sizes are going up in the US, and one of the associated terms is 'McMansion'. But name-calling like that makes for boring, go-nowhere threads. The average residential size per capita in the UK is about 1/2 of the US. http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/how-big-is-a-house http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/how-big-is-a-house . That Independent (and other sources) go on to point out that the UK has "the smallest properties in Europe following the end of national guidelines in 1980", see http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/rabbithutch-britain-growing-health-concerns-as-uk-sets-record-for-smallest-properties-in-europe-9544450.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/rabbithutch-b... . See also http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14916580 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14916580 if you want another news source. While you attribute UK's 77sq.m/person to the "welfare state", the Dutch and Danish welfare states have 115 and 137 sq.m/person. (UK has 255 people/sq.km, the Netherlands 409, and Denmark 128, so it's not a simple matter of density which causes the difference.) In Sweden, where I live, there's been a huge increase in the amount of space per person. In the 1940s, it was considered spacious for two parents and three children to live in a flat with a kitchen and 2 or 3 other rooms. (See http://poseidon.goteborg.se/sv/Sok-ledigt/Bostadsomraden/Sanna/ http://poseidon.goteborg.se/sv/Sok-ledigt/Bostadsomraden/San... , "Trots sitt syfte är de flesta lägenheterna tvåor eller treor, vilket räknades som en rymlig bostad för en trebarnsfamilj på den tiden.") So I don't understand your objection. You have no counter-evidence, you bring up the UK which has the worst history in this regard, and what information I can find does not back your statement that something as broad as "the welfare state" can be the issue for the UK.
  - stegosaurus 12y ago
    Planning restraint, combined with the way that housing is subsidised directly (rather than say, giving someone money to spend on building a new home). I have nothing against the welfare state - I'd rather see a citizen's income than the nonsense mash of policies we have at present, though. It makes no sense to me that the state should subsidise rental payments to private landlords in perpetuity. We should be building homes and relaxing planning permissions.

mtbcoder 12y ago

In the US, especially in the Midwest, former farm fields are quickly flipped and filled with stick-built homes in mere months. Seems pretty "mass-produced" to me.

gnoway 12y ago

Sure you can, at least with houses: that's what a manufactured/mobile home is. The problem is that in the US a manufactured home is usually considered substandard, low class or otherwise undesirable.

zimbu668 12y ago

>You can't exactly mass-produce houses There are certainly companies trying, depending on your definition of "mass produced". http://www.bluhomes.com/our-process http://www.bluhomes.com/our-process Doesn't seem much cheaper than conventional housing, but they are built inside, so your framing isn't getting rained on before the house is done.