Yes this rate is for new houses. Sorry I did not make that clear in the article. In the early 1970s the labor force participation rate for women was 43.5%. Today it is closer to 57.5%.
Do ALL the statistics relate to ALL types of housing (single-family houses, duplexes, apartments, condominiums, townhouses, etc.) or just to single-family houses? Excluding types of housing other than single-family houses would skew the statistics very markedly.
I'd be interested in seeing this trend by decade rather than just the end points.
And, of course, there are major geographic differences in housing prices. When my condo was build in 1974, it was cheap housing. Now it's very expensive and the demographics of those who live in the complex have accordingly changed.
I grew up in a 2 bed one bath tiny little thing built in the 1950s.
Ironically, my father could not afford that house today on his salary!
Most of the younger guys he worked with lived really far away from the job and did a brutal commute. Their houses were bigger than mine. Size doesn’t actually cost anything. Location does. The correlation between size and cost is only that size costs in expensive locations. Once you are slapping down master planned communities in the exurbs, the marginal cost of extra square feet is trivial.
I believe that houses, especially new houses, have gotten bigger. But those new houses aren’t in good school districts near the good jobs. They are way out somewhere that has cheap land because nobody wanted to live there until it became the only place they could afford.
Unadjusted housing costs only going up from 22 to 25 percent doesn't pass the sniff test. I suspect "housing costs" is defined as "annual expenditure", but in 1972 that was paying off a 15-year mortgage and now it's rent.
I assume this is for the US. No such trends in the UK, where houses are getting smaller.
That is correct. Thanks for the comment, we updated the title.
Love these emails and the content. Extremely intelligent people putting these together and out.
Does this also account for the fact that more women are working outside the home (which would drive up the household income)?
I'm also quite doubtful that > 97% of _all_ homes have A/C or garages. Perhaps those stats refer to newly constructed homes?
Yes this rate is for new houses. Sorry I did not make that clear in the article. In the early 1970s the labor force participation rate for women was 43.5%. Today it is closer to 57.5%.
Thanks for the clarification!
Do ALL the statistics relate to ALL types of housing (single-family houses, duplexes, apartments, condominiums, townhouses, etc.) or just to single-family houses? Excluding types of housing other than single-family houses would skew the statistics very markedly.
I find it hard to believe that 99.4% of US homes have central air conditioning. That statistic seems to be ??? Otherwise love the articles!
I did too. But the BLS is reporting that number. Note that this is for new homes.
Yes, I can believe that for new construction. Maybe should have noted that fact. Otherwise an excellent article.
I'd be interested in seeing this trend by decade rather than just the end points.
And, of course, there are major geographic differences in housing prices. When my condo was build in 1974, it was cheap housing. Now it's very expensive and the demographics of those who live in the complex have accordingly changed.
I grew up in a 2 bed one bath tiny little thing built in the 1950s.
Ironically, my father could not afford that house today on his salary!
Most of the younger guys he worked with lived really far away from the job and did a brutal commute. Their houses were bigger than mine. Size doesn’t actually cost anything. Location does. The correlation between size and cost is only that size costs in expensive locations. Once you are slapping down master planned communities in the exurbs, the marginal cost of extra square feet is trivial.
I believe that houses, especially new houses, have gotten bigger. But those new houses aren’t in good school districts near the good jobs. They are way out somewhere that has cheap land because nobody wanted to live there until it became the only place they could afford.
Unadjusted housing costs only going up from 22 to 25 percent doesn't pass the sniff test. I suspect "housing costs" is defined as "annual expenditure", but in 1972 that was paying off a 15-year mortgage and now it's rent.