this post was submitted on 12 Apr 2024
650 points (96.8% liked)
Political Memes
5419 readers
3730 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Average new home in 1960: 1300 sq/ft. (without garage)
Average new home in 2020: 2600 sq/ft (+ 2-3 car garage)
Average household size in 1960: 3.4
Average household size: 2.5
Number of households with 2 or more vehicles in 1960: 22%
Number of house holds with 2 or more vehicles in 2020: 59%
Ya'll, I don't know how else to explain this - the reason home ownership and cost of living is expensive is very straightforward. We don't build or accept smaller homes, we don't build enough of them, and we spend far more on vehicles.
Edit: if you want affordable housing, advocate (aka vote, canvas, donate) for candidates in your local government that support -
Okay so I'm with you on walkable cities being good, but everything else you said is offensively fucking wrong.
Care to elaborate on what you felt was offensively fucking wrong?
You agree with walkable cities but:
Bikes are cool!car parks need to be torn down or converted to semi-indoor agriculture
taxes are nice in theory but just get spent on cops (more on this later)
Corner shops are fine.
Denser zoning is good. Necessary. Important.
More sqft maybe, but that's only because we tend to jam more than one person per bedroom into apartments; a 1 BDRM would be lovely for most people.
But all their solutions are electoral, and if electoralism was going to solve problems without a literal gun to its metaphorical head, it would have at least fucking started by now. If it were going to do what the majority of people want, I would live in a very different country (single payer healthcare federally legal weed few/no barriers to abortion, at least). Instead its moving away from all that.
And proposing electoralist and government solutions is just complete bullshit. Its like actively harming a cause, I'd rather you be a screaming gammon shouting that I'm gonna go to hell for wanting a grocery store I can walk to; I genuinely think that would be more helpful.
Don't just say "it's fucking wrong" without explaining yourself. It kills debates and it just looks like you're salty and took the comment personally
Take some time and continue the conversation
Theres a reason I did that. Observe (in another reply, just a minute; steam making typing awkward)
they presented exactly as much proof as you did
Proof? Who's talking about proof?
You've twisted this topics conversation entirely, elaboration doesn't necessarily infer referencing up your scientific sources. You can explain yourself, which I did more than the other comment.
Anecdotes are okay but if you're disagreeing with someone actually try to explain why, don't just say they're wrong.
But thanks for your input.
if your claims can be refuted with one word, then that word suffices.
No
Oh. I hadn't considered that. Gimme a minute.
This is a gross oversimplification and in part just illogical. Yes, new small homes would help everyone out. But compare house prices to purchasing power then vs. now. It’s absolutely incomparable to 1960. That’s not because of square footage. And car ownership as an input here makes no sense. The costs of a downpayment and mortgage are simply out of reach for many people irrespective of car count. I say all this as a homeowner.
Purchasing power is a function of how much you spend on rent, which is a function of housing supply relative to demand, which is a function of the zoning laws comment-OP referred to.
purchasing power is a function of those zoning laws. When you disrupt the free market (like a zoning law that says you can’t put more than three units on an acre of land despite a hundred units being more profitable overall, just an example) people suffer and it gets worse over time. These effects build up.
Government meddling in the real estate market isn’t the only thing affecting that purchasing power, but it’s in the mix.
Just to be clear, I am not on the side of absolutely free market, but we have to recognize when certain policies are causing harm than good. For example, part of the increase is due to increased code regulations, but this is a good thing because it insulates (heh) consumers from from a number of hidden risks that the average consumer won't self-mitigate.
It really is not. I'm not saying there are no other economic challenges, but the vast majority of housing costs are effectively caused by this.
Here:
The median home price in 1960 was around 20,000. In inflation adjusted 2020 dollars that would have been close to 200,000.
This puts the price per square foot prices within the $100-150 range.
In 2020, the price per square foot was in the same range.
Wages have remained largely static. To be clear, this is NOT a good thing as productivity has skyrocketed, but is beside the point for now.
Effectively, the reason why people cannot afford a mortgage is massively influenced by the average size of home.
Cars make this fact even worse. On the mid to low income side of the economic spectrum, car ownership can easily cost 30% of household spending. A two car garage easily adds 10%+ to home costs.
Hm, you know, you’re right, that’s a fairer point than I expected. I think what I hadn’t appreciated (but do now, after thinking through your reply) was how much “back-pressure” the new home construction puts on the market. The current median house price is about double that 200k-equivalent figure, and while the growth in median house size doesn’t directly account for all of that, the availability of new houses is effectively throttled by the size increase so the prices of all houses rise.
I think it was hard for me to imagine, because I have a fairly small house (1800 sq. ft) bought recently, no garage, built in the 50s, oil heating (very old), and it was 600k. Which is massively expensive compared to 200k and has none of the “big excessive new house” traits you’ve mentioned. Median is median, though, I suppose.