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 the United States, there is a common term used to describe a small living space. It is called a "starter home." So, that gives you a good idea about how it is widely viewed.
There are certain dynamics that make owning a larger house attractive. In most of the U.S., houses are much less expensive compared to similar houses in other developed countries. Real estate agents tend to push people to purchase the largest house they can afford. People often consider their house as being more than just a place to live in, but also a long-term investment that appreciates over time. 95% of all dwellings are single family houses.
Yea, I'm aware--I live in the US and own my home. Starter homes exist in other countries, where similarly to the US, it's not uncommon to move to a larger home as one's family gets larger.
There are certain dynamics that make owning a larger house attractive to some extent, and that extent varies depending on the person and the culture which is the point of the post you were responding to. You don't directly address that point in your response for some reason, but I assume you agree to some extent if you're not saying anything directly in opposition to it.
There are also a few things that maybe should be cleared up. The US has among the largest average square footage per house, with Australia being larger I believe and Canada and New Zealand about on par, but it's not like the average for most other countries are micro-apartments unless you're comparing to small city-states. It also doesn't mean that's what is more desirable to all people, because due to physical geometric constraints, having tracts of large houses means greater difficulty in having things like pedestrian-oriented streets and vibrant commercial districts (though the coronavirus has put a bit of a damper on that). I'm also not sure what the point of saying in the US homes are long-term investments that appreciate over time since it's not just the US among developed countries where it's common for people's wealth to be tied into their homes and as a long-term investment. That happens nearly everywhere among developed countries. It also happens with both non-SFH units in cities as well as for SFH in suburbs for both the US and other developed countries and much of the rest of the world with thins like speculation taxes and foreign ownership taxes to ward off real estate hoarding as an investment vehicle particularly common in the more expensive cities with notably less SFH construction than low-density suburbs. If this is a comparison topic, then I'm not sure what the point of bringing that up is since it's something that is common everywhere.
The only place among developed countries I can think of where there's a substantial crinkle in this is Japan where they strongly prize new homes. There, the land value often keeps going up quite a bit, but the home that it's built on doesn't necessarily appreciate since the Japanese market is really into new homes and a 30 year old home, unless it's an incredibly old historic one which aren't common since the Japanese historically built out of timber in a very seismically active area, is considered absolutely ancient and undesirable. That's combined with what works out to a more Georgist land value tax than a property value tax where much of the tax one pays for a residence is essentially based on what the optimal land use would be for that parcel rather than it is about what is currently built on it. That ends up incentivizing people to build out far more square footage, and combined with the strong preference for new homes, means that Japanese cities often see teardown of buildings in order to create even larger and taller buildings, but it still does not mean people's wealth aren't tied to property in Japan.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 05-12-2020 at 12:06 PM..
I'm in love with Japan's system. Practicality. It's not the prettiest, actually often bland, but I've never lived in a more modern situation at such a low price. The toilet is the high point tbf, but the bathtub is a jacuzzi. We have 2 large balconies, which are used more for drying clothes though we've been utilizing them to wfh outside with a pretty great view over Kabukicho and Shin-Okubo. The only thing it doesn't do well is the kitchen, but for what I cook it's more than enough. I don't really utilize my kitchen at all in NYC. It puts my luxury studio in NYC to shame tbh. My view is better in NYC, but we have it covered in curtains nearly 100% of the time. There's obviously the amenities, but the private space we get from the Japanese studio feels like it outclasses it. I should also mention we snagged it for $14/day, which comes out to be somewhere between 1/4 to 1/5 the cost of my rent stabilized studio in NYC. God damn.
Old is 80s in Tokyo, and generally rightfully needs to be torn down and updated to the most modern preventive measures to handle earthquakes. In NYC I lived in a building that dates back to 1890. We've been through 5 or 6 earthquakes ranging from 2.0 to 4.0 since coming on March 15 and our cups of coffee or tea when we had them have never split a drop which I find amazing. In 2017 I think it was, we dealt with a 8.4 where it originated I think(?) in Shimbashi (sorry I don't remember much of this, I was quite drunk), and while everything shook violently and I had to catch our yakitori plates when they slid off the table, the building we were in suffered no damage and the alcohol was free for the rest of the night!
Also currently in that type of neighborhood where I can go out and do... whatever I want. Sort of like the Lower East Side, but with a bit more 'freedom' and a lot less expensive. 7th time in Japan and by far the longest stay I've ever done. By the time our visa ends, we'll have done 5 months, maybe more if my girlfriends college decides to do online til the end of the year. I'm in love with this, working remote for an NYC company in Tokyo. High US pay with the comforts of Japanese society. Now if only I didn't have to work on EST hours!
New England: 9
West Coast: 9
Mid Atlantic: 8
MidWest: 8
Southwest: 8
Southeast: 6
Comparing states like Connecticut/Massachusetts/New Jersey to Alabama/Mississippi/Arkansas gives you a completely different America. Progressive, Leafy, Rich, Urban and Diverse ... compared to Regressive, Poor Poorly Educated, Rural and Conservative
Id put it as the following (Some States)
10: Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey
9: New Hampshire, Maryland, Minnesota, Washington, Iowa, Oregon
8: New York, Rhode Island, California, Michigan, Virginia, Colorado, Utah, Hawaii, Illinois
7: Texas, Florida, North Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee
6: Alabama, South Carolina, Arkansas, Kentucky
5: Mississippi, West Virginia
There are certain dynamics that make owning a larger house attractive to some extent, and that extent varies depending on the person and the culture which is the point of the post you were responding to. You don't directly address that point in your response for some reason, but I assume you agree to some extent if you're not saying anything directly in opposition to it.
It is difficult to come to a consensus about how to measure things like freedom, opportunity, standard of living, quality of life, etc., since people in different countries and cultures cannot come to an agreement about what they mean when you get down to the specifics.
So, ranking individual countries with respect to these things on a global scale is rather pointless. But I agree you can group certain countries into general categories.
New England: 9
West Coast: 9
Mid Atlantic: 8
MidWest: 8
Southwest: 8
Southeast: 6
Comparing states like Connecticut/Massachusetts/New Jersey to Alabama/Mississippi/Arkansas gives you a completely different America. Progressive, Leafy, Rich, Urban and Diverse ... compared to Regressive, Poor Poorly Educated, Rural and Conservative
Id put it as the following (Some States)
10: Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey
9: New Hampshire, Maryland, Minnesota, Washington, Iowa, Oregon
8: New York, Rhode Island, California, Michigan, Virginia, Colorado, Utah, Hawaii, Illinois
7: Texas, Florida, North Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee
6: Alabama, South Carolina, Arkansas, Kentucky
5: Mississippi, West Virginia
Where would Georgia be ranked? I'm guessing by your standards it would be about a 6.5. I'd give it an 8, but I'm biased since I'm from here, and I'm assuming by your username you're from Mass. I do think of states individually as they are each their own country. I wouldn't give any US state a 10, especially when compared to Japan and Western/Northern European countries.
It is difficult to come to a consensus about how to measure things like freedom, opportunity, standard of living, quality of life, etc., since people in different countries and cultures cannot come to an agreement about what they mean when you get down to the specifics.
So, ranking individual countries with respect to these things on a global scale is rather pointless. But I agree you can group certain countries into general categories.
Of course it's difficult. There have been many attempts and there are a lot of different metrics cited as potentially correlating to these things. I've pointed out several of them, and while the US is almost never at the very top on these composite indices (HDI, IHDI, various "freedom" or economic opportunity indices) or on metrics (on a per capita basis) that are often thought of as good more directly correlated with quality of life (life expectancy, literacy) and economic might (patents per capita, median household income), the US is almost always within the top 20% of countries.
I don't know if it's quite pointless, since a general perception somewhat informed by such drives certain consequential things like immigration and tourism, but it is complicated. I think a lot of our back and forth is my trying to clarify the rationale on some of the things that have been mentioned that I find questionable. This would be things like a fairly large average home size being a particularly meaningful indicator of economic prosperity or quality of life, the implied suggestion that Americans are unique in valuing property ownership as part of building household wealth, or that extremely high incarceration rates are really a necessity for economic prosperity and innovation.
Of course it's difficult. There have been many attempts and there are a lot of different metrics cited as potentially correlating to these things. I've pointed out several of them, and while the US is almost never at the very top on these composite indices (HDI, IHDI, various "freedom" or economic opportunity indices) or on metrics (on a per capita basis) that are often thought of as good more directly correlated with quality of life (life expectancy, literacy) and economic might (patents per capita, median household income), the US is almost always within the top 20% of countries.
I don't think you can convince the vast majority of Americans that countries that have much more expensive housing and automobiles, high gas prices, high taxes and government regulations have a higher level of freedom and quality of life than the United States.
That seems to describe a lot of other first world countries.
I don't think you can convince the vast majority of Americans that countries that have much more expensive housing and automobiles, high gas prices, high taxes and government regulations have a higher level of freedom and quality of life than the United States.
That seems to describe a lot of other first world countries.
My disagreements with some of what you've said revolves around things like fairly large average home size being a particularly meaningful indicator of economic prosperity or quality of life, the implied suggestion that Americans are unique in valuing property ownership as part of building household wealth, or that extremely high incarceration rates are really a necessity for economic prosperity and innovation. These are things that you brought up, but to me, don't seem to be convincingly argued. That doesn't have much to do with me trying to convince the majority of Americans of anything.
I've already stated before that people have different preferences on a personal and larger cultural level, and I'm not sure what else you want to argue on this. I did not take this topic to be specifically about what caters the most heavily to the preferences of most Americans, and I certainly don't doubt that America caters more heavily to preferences of many Americans than many other countries do.
It's also not really true as an overall statement that other first world countries have much more expensive housing or even much higher taxes or heavier government regulations (that highly depends on what's being regulated and how it's regulated). Gas prices though are almost always higher in other developed countries unless you're using a definition of developed countries like the very high HDI category of countries where you then start counting a lot of countries with economies heavily based on petroleum and have extremely low gas prices, but are also notorious for many other things. Also, if you're talking about buying the same vehicles that are offered and popular in the US versus buying it elsewhere, then those same make and model automobiles are indeed usually more expensive.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 05-13-2020 at 10:45 AM..
Status:
"See My Blog Entries for my Top 500 Most Important USA Cities"
(set 4 days ago)
Location: Harrisburg, PA
1,051 posts, read 975,507 times
Reputation: 1406
Quote:
Originally Posted by masssachoicetts
Depends on where
New England: 9
West Coast: 9
Mid Atlantic: 8
MidWest: 8
Southwest: 8
Southeast: 6
Comparing states like Connecticut/Massachusetts/New Jersey to Alabama/Mississippi/Arkansas gives you a completely different America. Progressive, Leafy, Rich, Urban and Diverse ... compared to Regressive, Poor Poorly Educated, Rural and Conservative
Id put it as the following (Some States)
10: Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey
9: New Hampshire, Maryland, Minnesota, Washington, Iowa, Oregon
8: New York, Rhode Island, California, Michigan, Virginia, Colorado, Utah, Hawaii, Illinois
7: Texas, Florida, North Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee
6: Alabama, South Carolina, Arkansas, Kentucky
5: Mississippi, West Virginia
It would be interesting and possibly helpful to break it down even further to find the worst areas of poverty. Particularly certain sections of inner cities that rank poorly.
4: Kensington section of North Philadelphia, East and West Baltimore, sections of urban prairie all over Detroit, Flint MI, East St. Louis, Gary IN, Jackson MS, Southside and West Chicago, sections of New Orleans and Memphis, sections of the Bronx, SE Washington DC, many sections of Dallas Houston and Atlanta, and many others. Many of these areas experience rampant unemployment, crime, and dysfunction that negatively affect QOL. Almost every city (no matter how small) in America has at least one such section.
Cities tend to be dramatic examples because poverty and strife is often times very concentrated and apparent in one geographic area. But, there are certain rural areas that also rank poorly as well. Poverty in these areas is more spread out.
3: Along Mississippi River Delta, Trenton Alabama (lowest HDI in the USA on par with Tajikistan), McDowell County WV (lowest life expectancy in USA), remote parts of Indian reservations, far-flung areas of Alaska, and countless other examples where you could drill down and find small areas of extreme poverty. Often times, there are no jobs whatsoever in these areas, often requiring long commutes or simply relocation altogether leaving these areas even worse off.
So, basically, poverty does not necessarily discriminate based on political leaning or population density. Though I think you may have identified a correlation.
Keep in mind these are some of the most extreme examples of poverty in America. I voted 9 in the poll, but I see 8.5 being more realistic. I agree with your state rankings and find it very interesting to break it down that way. Louisiana and New Mexico would be also pretty low, probably 6.5. I wonder where you would rank Pennsylvania as a whole?
My disagreements with some of what you've said revolves around things like fairly large average home size being a particularly meaningful indicator of economic prosperity or quality of life
"How much house will I get for the money?" is one of the most central questions that anyone will ask about living in a locality.
It doesn't get more basic than that.
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.
