Adjusted for inflation, a Single Family Home costs 75% more than it did in 1987
1–10 of 49 posts
Re: Adjusted for inflation, a Single Family Home costs 75% more than it did in 1987
#2Note that one factor may be population, which has increased about 35% since 1987. Buildable (and desirable) land is finite.
Re: Adjusted for inflation, a Single Family Home costs 75% more than it did in 1987
#3What has the square footage and amenities for single family homes done over the same time frame? You aren't comparing apples to apples...
https://www.propertyshark.com/Real-Estate-Reports/2016/09/08...
Not to mention the average household size (number of people) has been dropping...so the square foot per household member is up drastically...
Re: Adjusted for inflation, a Single Family Home costs 75% more than it did in 1987
#4As it should be.
Avg home size in 1987: 1780 SQ ft
Avg home size in 2022: 2540 SQ ft
Re: Adjusted for inflation, a Single Family Home costs 75% more than it did in 1987
#5As it should be. Avg home size in 1987: 1780 SQ ft Avg home size in 2022: 2540 SQ ft
That’s a 43% increase, and unsourced, may be an outlier skewed mean?
Re: Adjusted for inflation, a Single Family Home costs 75% more than it did in 1987
#6What has the square footage and amenities for single family homes done over the same time frame? You aren't comparing apples to apples... https://www.propertyshark.com/Real-Estate-Reports/2016/09/08... Not to mention the average household size (number of people) has been dropping...so the square foot per household member is up drastically...
This article says homes are 74% larger, but compares to 1910.
Not sure why the cost per household member should matter all. I didn’t get a family size discount on my home.
Re: Adjusted for inflation, a Single Family Home costs 75% more than it did in 1987
#7Note that one factor may be population, which has increased about 35% since 1987. Buildable (and desirable) land is finite.
Desirable land is not just finite, it's shrinking in area, due to ongoing fossil-fueled global warming. For example, many people who were planning on retiring to the bucolic Sierra foothills in California have changed plans since that whole region is now a major fire risk zone (much more so than it was 40 years ago).
https://www.deseret.com/2022/2/11/22928243/stanford-universi...
> "Rao and other researchers looked at the “vapor pressure deficit,” which is an indicator of how much moisture the air can suck out of soil and plants, across the region. Vapor pressure deficit has increased over the past 40 years across most of the American West, largely because warmer air can hold more water."
Likewise, zones categorized as having major flood risks are expanding:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/06/29/climate/hidde...
Re: Adjusted for inflation, a Single Family Home costs 75% more than it did in 1987
#8What has the square footage and amenities for single family homes done over the same time frame? You aren't comparing apples to apples... https://www.propertyshark.com/Real-Estate-Reports/2016/09/08... Not to mention the average household size (number of people) has been dropping...so the square foot per household member is up drastically...
This article says homes are 74% larger, but compares to 1910. Not sure why the cost per household member should matter all. I didn’t get a family size discount on my home.
> I didn’t get a family size discount on my home
You do though. The cost of kitchen for a couple without kids, and one for a family of 5 is roughly the same. You might have more square footage overall for house, with more people, but the construction costs are concentrated on the shared spaces like kitchens or even things like living living rooms where square footage will scale sub-linearly with the number of people in the household.
Re: Adjusted for inflation, a Single Family Home costs 75% more than it did in 1987
#9And interest rates are a lot lower today... the actual "cost" is probably the same or lower today.
Re: Adjusted for inflation, a Single Family Home costs 75% more than it did in 1987
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
This article says homes are 74% larger, but compares to 1910. Not sure why the cost per household member should matter all. I didn’t get a family size discount on my home.
> I didn’t get a family size discount on my home You do though. The cost of kitchen for a couple without kids, and one for a family of 5 is roughly the same. You might have more square footage overall for house, with more people, but the construction costs are concentrated on the shared spaces like kitchens or even things like living living rooms where square footage will scale sub-linearly with the number of people…
Not to mention there used to be more multigenerational homes...therefore more people to pay the cost.