Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In general for your age group they haven't. It's the younger ones that are hit the hardest, because the economy has never been good during their working lives, and it's been particularly bad lately.
At any rate we shouldn't be satisfied with stagnant living standards. We certainly weren't at any other time in our history! From 1825 to 1975 we averaged a 2% yearly increase in real income. Why has it been essentially flat since? If the same trend had continued our incomes would be >2x higher now than they are!
Also the median house price has risen 3.5x since 1960, CPI adjusted.
And the size of the median home has increased by more than 1000 square feet.
CPI adjusted, the price of a home, per square foot, hasn't changed since the 1960s. I am going to let you run the numbers on that since I've posted the info several times on this forum already, but I'm right.
This is interesting to me because it showcases a fundamental shift in expectations and preferences of consumers.
In the USA, people have become adjusted to living their lives according to cliches, myths and a nearly complete lack of reality. We've allowed society to be dumbed down to the lowest common denominator through a liberal controlled education system and are headed down the slippery slope towards third world status. The "live within your means" myth is just another way of pretending that if you spend everything you have, the government will take care of everything else.
And the size of the median home has increased by more than 1000 square feet. CPI adjusted, the price of a home, per square foot, hasn't changed since the 1960s.
The real median price of a new home has gone from $100K to $350k. Sq ft has gone from 1400 to 2400. Price per sq ft has still more than doubled.
Price per sq ft isn't a good metric anyway though, since the price of a house doesn't scale linearly with size. If 2400 sq ft are selling for $350k in your neighborhood, you won't have any luck finding a 1000 sq ft home for $146k. Maybe $225... except that no one is building them.
All the new houses are big for a reason. It's because the price of land and infrastructure are so high that small houses are a bad deal and hard to sell. Increasingly only the upper class can afford a new house.
And the size of the median home has increased by more than 1000 square feet.
CPI adjusted, the price of a home, per square foot, hasn't changed since the 1960s. I am going to let you run the numbers on that since I've posted the info several times on this forum already, but I'm right.
This is interesting to me because it showcases a fundamental shift in expectations and preferences of consumers.
What about those with low expectations? All I want is a 400-sq ft house on a 2,500-sq ft lot. Why should I be denied that option because others have higher expectations?
The real median price of a new home has gone from $100K to $350k. Sq ft has gone from 1400 to 2400. Price per sq ft has still more than doubled.
Price per sq ft isn't a good metric anyway though, since the price of a house doesn't scale linearly with size. If 2400 sq ft are selling for $350k in your neighborhood, you won't have any luck finding a 1000 sq ft home for $146k. Maybe $225... except that no one is building them.
All the new houses are big for a reason. It's because the price of land and infrastructure are so high that small houses are a bad deal and hard to sell. Increasingly only the upper class can afford a new house.
At sane time as salaries have only as whole gone up slowly ;the prices of good normal to survival have stay low. I am 67 and have never seen the standard of living drop. certainly now money sis spent has changed. One thing is that stats just released show nearly same amount spent to buy food in restaurants as grocery stores. Basically people have chosen to spend differently. Having lived since the 50:I do not think many now days would want to return to that standard. Most have a Hollywood view of what it was really like. House only cost that in very high priced areas really and they certainly are not the houses bought in the 50-60's by common people. Homeownership historically has run at 65% ,and they got into the 70% range before the crash.
Most of my adult life has been spent in (slowly) declining standard of living.
And the size of the median home has increased by more than 1000 square feet.
CPI adjusted, the price of a home, per square foot, hasn't changed since the 1960s. I am going to let you run the numbers on that since I've posted the info several times on this forum already, but I'm right.
This is interesting to me because it showcases a fundamental shift in expectations and preferences of consumers.
And the number of people per household since the 1960s has shrunk. Although it may have increased over the last decade, I don't think we're back to 1960s levels. So that adds even more support to your assertion that expectations have run ahead of reality.
The "live within your means" myth is just another way of pretending that if you spend everything you have, the government will take care of everything else.
Huh?
It seems to me people who live within their means will be less dependent on government subsidies than those who don't. Yes, technically, you need to live below your means to make that happen, but that is sort of implied in the saying, as it's practically impossible to live up to your means without going over.
What about those with low expectations? All I want is a 400-sq ft house on a 2,500-sq ft lot. Why should I be denied that option because others have higher expectations?
No, you want that particular sized house on that particular sized lot, IN A PARTICULAR AREA.
Because if you default the bank will never sell a 400 sq ft home.
Nor do neighborhoods want folks likely to default or not fit in the neighborhood demographics. Last thing they want is something that resembles a trailer park.
In fact even in rural pa where we had a house the min sq footage was set by the town. I think it was 1500
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
