Few counter arguments here, the lack of college degrees were due to colleges not being printing presses for useless degrees in the 1950s and things like thesis papers and dissertations still existed. Cars were less necessary than they are today because there were larger homesteads (more people per house) who only needed one vehicle for several people and public transportation wasn’t homeless people and drugs addicts waiting to mug you or pissing on the floor. The economy had not reached full fiat manipulation yet. You could maybe argue housing but even then it was normal for large multigenerational families in smaller homes because they were building the infrastructure we utilize to this day and demand for each generation to live separately was not only not a thing it was considered abnormal for children to leave their parents home until they themselves were married.
I find that 66% of Americans are homeowners statistic to be suspect as well. Are they counting people that "own" their home, but are underwater on their zero down mortgage?
To me, you don't really own your home unless it's completely paid off. So, what percentage of that 66% have active mortgages, and how much equity do they have in their homes? Now do that same analysis for the 55% figure he provides from the 1950s. I would be willing to bet there's a lot more equity in houses in the past.
even then it was normal for large multigenerational families in smaller homes
That's the same thing that happens today, practically none of my generation owns property. We just can't afford it. Several of my friends split their time between living at their parents home, and living at their parents-in-laws home. And that's with both of them working full time jobs.
Several of my friends split their time between living at their parents home, and living at their parents-in-laws home.
Think I've found why they can't afford a home. They jumped to the rigged business contract and are now on the hook for someone else's expenses.
If people really wanted to make an argument about how wealth hasn't gotten harder to get, they'd point out the idiots paying two sets of bills and looking for a more expensive property because they couldn't bear the idea of not cooming.
Most people here don't like Ukraine, but if someone started spamming every single thread by complaining about that non-country and blaming every ill on it, he would be very much disliked.
You could maybe argue housing but even then it was normal for large multigenerational families
Yeah, and as I said in my other comment, we've got more single people and working single women now. If you adjust for that, it's possible - just possible, I haven't calculated or anything - that homeownership is down. 55% to 66% percent doesn't seem like a huge change given the huge changes to society. Some questions certainly remain.
Few counter arguments here, the lack of college degrees were due to colleges not being printing presses for useless degrees in the 1950s and things like thesis papers and dissertations still existed. Cars were less necessary than they are today because there were larger homesteads (more people per house) who only needed one vehicle for several people and public transportation wasn’t homeless people and drugs addicts waiting to mug you or pissing on the floor. The economy had not reached full fiat manipulation yet. You could maybe argue housing but even then it was normal for large multigenerational families in smaller homes because they were building the infrastructure we utilize to this day and demand for each generation to live separately was not only not a thing it was considered abnormal for children to leave their parents home until they themselves were married.
I find that 66% of Americans are homeowners statistic to be suspect as well. Are they counting people that "own" their home, but are underwater on their zero down mortgage?
To me, you don't really own your home unless it's completely paid off. So, what percentage of that 66% have active mortgages, and how much equity do they have in their homes? Now do that same analysis for the 55% figure he provides from the 1950s. I would be willing to bet there's a lot more equity in houses in the past.
That's the same thing that happens today, practically none of my generation owns property. We just can't afford it. Several of my friends split their time between living at their parents home, and living at their parents-in-laws home. And that's with both of them working full time jobs.
The world is shit.
Think I've found why they can't afford a home. They jumped to the rigged business contract and are now on the hook for someone else's expenses.
If people really wanted to make an argument about how wealth hasn't gotten harder to get, they'd point out the idiots paying two sets of bills and looking for a more expensive property because they couldn't bear the idea of not cooming.
Most people here don't like Ukraine, but if someone started spamming every single thread by complaining about that non-country and blaming every ill on it, he would be very much disliked.
Yeah, and as I said in my other comment, we've got more single people and working single women now. If you adjust for that, it's possible - just possible, I haven't calculated or anything - that homeownership is down. 55% to 66% percent doesn't seem like a huge change given the huge changes to society. Some questions certainly remain.
Women's homeownership is higher than men's, because of the amount of wealth they've stolen.
I'm shocked - shocked, I say! - that you'd make such a statement.
It's factually accurate.
Or -- OR -- in this case, women just outlived their spouses (on average), and older people/married couples are more likely to own a home.
(insert your own conspiracy theory as to why they outlived their spouses here)