• Razsiel@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    10 months ago

    You can tell by the average income (2nd line), it being almost 50% of the price of a new house says pleeenty

    • SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      Homes were much smaller then and homeownership rates were lower.

      Avg Size of homes: 1920: 1,048 square feet 1930: 1,129 1940: 1,177 1950: 983 1960: 1,289 1970: 1,500 1980: 1,740 1990: 2,080 2000: 2,266 2010: 2,392 2014: 2,657

      Historical Homeownership Rate in the United States: 1940: 43.6% 2023: 66%

      • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        10 months ago

        Is that home ownership rate the % of houses owned by the people living in them or the % of people who live in a house they (or their immediate family) own?

      • PoliticalAgitator@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        10 months ago

        Sounds like neoliberal apologism to me.

        If “homes were much smaller” is the problem, why can’t people still buy a 1,048 square ft house for half an average income?

        How has “historical homeownership rate” changed the affordability of houses, especially with your statistic existing in a vacuum, completely isolated from things like “number of houses available”?

        To put it bluntly, you’ve clearly just grabbed two statistics at random and claimed those are the reasons people can’t afford homes any more because “houses have been allowed to become high return investments” and “executives are fucking workers out of every cent they can and obfuscating it by getting foreign slaves to product cheap tat”.