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.
I agree with that ;in decades to come the chinese will be griping about import from other countries. Its a world econmomy and has been for decades but we were then the only real mass producer since WWII.
This is a flawed analysis because what once were thought to be luxuries are now considered "necessities." That is part of the reason that we are in the mess in which we find ourselves. When I was a kid, a 1,500 sq. ft. house was considered big--now it's considered average, at best. Most middle-class folks now consider at least one automobile for every person over the age of 16 in the household a "necessity." Same with TV's, telephones, etc. So, when someone says 70% of consumer spending is for "necessities"--that's bull****, pure and simple. What will happen in the coming years of economic contraction (and maybe near collapse) is that a spoiled American population is going to have to find out the difference between what are really "necessities," and what we just thought were necessities, but really were luxuries. For just about everyone around now, from we Baby Boomers on through to the latest generations, that is going to be one bitter lesson. As most posts on these forums show, few people really know the difference. They're going to find out.
Many of the new houses being built are smaller. Not only can they be built for less they can sell for less, and a lot of people are discovering that the 3000 sf takes a lot of air and heat. Size is a lot more than just how much furnature you can buy, its all the costs that go with keeping a house comfortable
We as Americans are obsessed with "stuff" and that is one reason why some of our economy is suffering badly as people realize that when its paying the utilities or updating the goodies its no real choice. Our economy can't rest on those things that people don't need or it will falter badly whenever a small downturn happens.
And we can't keep living in a world where you "own" your goodies with a credit card that you don't pay off either. Tomorrow has caught up with a lot of people and I hope they remember the lesson they learned.
Many of the new houses being built are smaller. Not only can they be built for less they can sell for less, and a lot of people are discovering that the 3000 sf takes a lot of air and heat. Size is a lot more than just how much furnature you can buy, its all the costs that go with keeping a house comfortable
No rather a lot of people are discovering that you can only get a mortgage for a place if you can actually afford it. Regardless, the easily credit environment distorted the home market. Far too many large homes were built, but the shift has nothing to do with a change in attitude rather a change in credit availability.
No rather a lot of people are discovering that you can only get a mortgage for a place if you can actually afford it. Regardless, the easily credit environment distorted the home market. Far too many large homes were built, but the shift has nothing to do with a change in attitude rather a change in credit availability.
Do you have any data for that, or are you posting your opinions as facts again?
Do you have any data for that, or are you posting your opinions as facts again?
It would be difficult to collect hard data on this as people are not honest about such things, my view is based the observation that:
1.) People are inherently materialistic (if anybody...wants to debate this please bang your head against a wall)
2.) People's change of "preference" is perfectly correlated with the tightening of the mortgage market.
So, what is more likely. A major social shift has occurred, or people's actions are being limited by a tighter mortgage market.
The FHA data does not show any sort of social shift, people are buying as much house as they can.
No rather a lot of people are discovering that you can only get a mortgage for a place if you can actually afford it. Regardless, the easily credit environment distorted the home market. Far too many large homes were built, but the shift has nothing to do with a change in attitude rather a change in credit availability.
I think that people may discover that its worth having less space and less cost as well. Utilities will always be a cost and its one that is controllable. I agree that too many mcmansions were built. People came to think that they *had* to have a huge space. Not the space they could afford but the space they thought they had to have. I wonder how many people were helped along by real estate agents as well. When my ex and I were looking at houses in the early 90's we were not even offered a look at what we knew we could afford in a pinch until we requested it. The agent still tried to push the very very top of what we could afford.
Building a glut of mcmansions is a self fufilling act. When we were looking we had no new homes to choose from since they didn't build smaller homes anymore. If you have to buy a big new house to get the plusses then who knows what people really wanted?
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.
