Started By
Message

The “time price” of square foot of housing is 24% lower than the 1950s

Posted on 6/1/26 at 7:47 pm
Posted by HailHailtoMichigan!
Mission Viejo, CA
Member since Mar 2012
74283 posts
Posted on 6/1/26 at 7:47 pm
The myth that your parents and grandparents had it better off re housing

Jeremy Horpedahl, an associate professor of economics at the University of Central Arkansas and a Cato Institute adjunct scholar, completed an analysis on housing amenities and found the following:


quote:


On average, only 22 percent of homes had the amenities Horpedahl looked at in 1956; today, 82 percent of them do.


quote:

Median home size has almost doubled, rising from about 1,150 square feet in 1956 to roughly 2,210 square feet today. Over the same period, average household size has shrunk from 3.3 people to 2.51. The result is a dramatic increase in living space per person—from just 348 square feet in 1956 to about 880 square feet today. That’s 532 more square feet per person, or a 153 percent increase. Had space per person stayed at its 1956 level, the typical home today would measure only about 874 square feet.




quote:

The median home cost about $14,500 in 1956—roughly $12.61 per square foot. With average wages at $1.85 an hour, each square foot required 6.82 hours of earning. Today, the median home price is about $420,300, or $190.18 per square foot. However, average wages have risen to $36.53 an hour (before benefits), bringing the time price down to 5.21 hours per square foot. So, while the dollar price per square foot has risen 15-fold, wages have increased nearly 20-fold. The result is the time price of housing has fallen by almost 24 percent.

Compared to 1956, we now enjoy 532 more square feet per person as well as homes packed with 3.7 times more amenities—and all of it for about 24 percent less time per square foot.



Posted by TheGeauxt9
South Louisiana
Member since May 2021
1137 posts
Posted on 6/1/26 at 7:50 pm to
Crock of shite
Posted by HailHailtoMichigan!
Mission Viejo, CA
Member since Mar 2012
74283 posts
Posted on 6/1/26 at 7:53 pm to
Do you have alternative data?
Posted by LSUSUPERSTAR
TX
Member since Jan 2005
17015 posts
Posted on 6/1/26 at 7:56 pm to
Why 1956? The people that bought those homes are dead. You should compare the year Boomers were in their late 20s or early 30s. So that would be the late 70s into the 80s.
Posted by Archives
Member since Mar 2026
399 posts
Posted on 6/1/26 at 7:58 pm to
Square footage on homes is often overlooked when people compare prices across different decades.
My grandmother's house had 2 bedrooms, one bath, and a window AC unit added much later.
No one would stoop to buy a house like that these days.
Posted by Gifman
Clearwater Beach, FL
Member since Jan 2021
18977 posts
Posted on 6/1/26 at 7:58 pm to
quote:

Human Progress


What in the hell is this publication ?

Posted by DownshiftAndFloorIt
Here
Member since Jan 2011
72210 posts
Posted on 6/1/26 at 8:00 pm to
quote:

be the late 70s into the 80s.


I think other than higher percentage of HVAC and ranges the rest wouldn't be so drastically different. A 2,000 sq ft house was gigantic in 1990, at least in south louisiana.
Posted by HailHailtoMichigan!
Mission Viejo, CA
Member since Mar 2012
74283 posts
Posted on 6/1/26 at 8:01 pm to
Yep.

This is the “dream house” that a 1965 auto worker in Michigan was living in



Posted by Sun God
Member since Jul 2009
52090 posts
Posted on 6/1/26 at 8:01 pm to
quote:

University of Central Arkansas and a Cato Institute adjunct scholar

lol
Posted by Joshjrn
Baton Rouge
Member since Dec 2008
32962 posts
Posted on 6/1/26 at 8:01 pm to
Interesting choice in year to cherry pick. I’m sure that wasn’t intentional…

Posted by Sun God
Member since Jul 2009
52090 posts
Posted on 6/1/26 at 8:03 pm to
quote:

Square footage on homes is often overlooked when people compare prices across different decades.

Compare any house in BR in 2010 to now and get back to me
Posted by Joshjrn
Baton Rouge
Member since Dec 2008
32962 posts
Posted on 6/1/26 at 8:04 pm to
quote:

Square footage on homes is often overlooked when people compare prices across different decades. My grandmother's house had 2 bedrooms, one bath, and a window AC unit added much later. No one would stoop to buy a house like that these days.

Plenty of people would buy it, depending on the location. Hell, turn it into an apartment on the upper east side of Manhattan and it’s probably worth $1M. The issue is that because the price of land has skyrocketed, no one is building houses that size anywhere near where people actually want to live.
Posted by Salmon
I helped draft the email
Member since Feb 2008
86326 posts
Posted on 6/1/26 at 8:07 pm to
quote:

This is the “dream house” that a 1965 auto worker in Michigan was living in


which is almost assuredly unaffordable for someone working on the line of plant today

which is the point in all of these conversations
Posted by Scruffy
Kansas City
Member since Jul 2011
77415 posts
Posted on 6/1/26 at 8:08 pm to
quote:

My grandmother's house had 2 bedrooms, one bath, and a window AC unit added much later. No one would stoop to buy a house like that these days.
What?

You put that house in an area that isn’t the ghetto and it would be snatched up immediately.

Anecdotal, but those homes are getting snatched up by companies, torn down, and then massive homes are built on the land. Happening in my neighborhood to all the homes built in the 70s/80s.

Also, why did he choose 1956 as the year to compare? Makes me question whether he has an agenda.
This post was edited on 6/1/26 at 8:10 pm
Posted by Joshjrn
Baton Rouge
Member since Dec 2008
32962 posts
Posted on 6/1/26 at 8:10 pm to
quote:

You put that house in an area that isn’t the ghetto and it would be snatched up immediately. Anecdotal, but those homes are getting snatched up by companies, torn down, and then massive homes are built on the land. Happening in my neighborhood to all the homes built in the 70s/80s.

It’s become very common in Baton Rouge for old houses on decent sized lots to get torn down and replaced by two two-story pseudo-shotguns side by side, taking up the whole lot. Land is just too valuable to let it “go to waste” these days.
Posted by Salmon
I helped draft the email
Member since Feb 2008
86326 posts
Posted on 6/1/26 at 8:10 pm to
quote:

My grandmother's house had 2 bedrooms, one bath, and a window AC unit added much later.
No one would stoop to buy a house like that these days.


These houses sale in a day for $250k in my neighborhood in fricking Shreveport
Posted by Breauxsif
Member since May 2012
22552 posts
Posted on 6/1/26 at 8:11 pm to
Specifically where in BR are you referring to?
Posted by Scruffy
Kansas City
Member since Jul 2011
77415 posts
Posted on 6/1/26 at 8:12 pm to
quote:

It’s become very common in Baton Rouge for old houses on decent sized lots to get torn down and replaced by two two-story pseudo-shotguns side by side, taking up the whole lot. Land is just too valuable to let it “go to waste” these days.
Like I said, it’s happening around me too.

What would make more money? Selling a single 1500 sqft home or tearing it down and building two 2000+ sqft homes on the land, each selling for double the original?
Posted by GreatLakesTiger24
Member since May 2012
60820 posts
Posted on 6/1/26 at 8:13 pm to
quote:

which is almost assuredly unaffordable for someone working on the line of plant today

which is the point in all of these conversations
yeah now a house like that is purchased by a young professional couple with help form mom and dad, probably
Posted by Sun God
Member since Jul 2009
52090 posts
Posted on 6/1/26 at 8:17 pm to
quote:

Specifically where in BR are you referring to?

Southdowns

Garden District

Old houses are torn down and replaced with farmhouse shiplap monstrosities
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Jump to page
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 7Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram