New here?
Create an account to submit posts, participate in discussions and chat with people.
Sign up
Firstly the number crunchers say that adjusted for inflation since 1950’s America an average house should cost $93.5k but they are currently around $410k. They completely ignore some important factors that make the cost way worse. If someone built a modern home by todays standards in the 50’s they wouldn’t be able to give it away.

In 1950 there were 7.3 people for every home in 2024 it’s down to 4.25 so inventory is much higher.

Homes were built to last over 100 years without major renovations, they are now projected to last only 40 to 60 and that is an extremely generous estimate. I’ve personally replaced rotten exterior trim on homes I installed the siding on less than 5 years earlier and almost all windows are framed in vinyl which only lasts 20 years when exposed to direct sun. And any flooring that’s not solid wood or tile is garbage in 10 to 15 years at best.

Before 1950 homes were built with hand tools, skip sheeted, lath and plastered, and every nail was driven by hand an average home had at least 600% more man hours.

Literally every piece of hardware, material, fixture, and appliance is extremely cheaply made and inferior to old stuff, appliances from back then still work today and can be maintained indefinitely if the parts are available. If you go into a 100 year old home and look at the door knobs, locks, hinges, heat registers, faucets they are all made of premium material compared to today the pipes were metal instead of poly vinyl chloride. A 2x6” was just that not 1.5- by 5.5- and the wood was high grade better than furniture grade today.

If these things were factored in when people compared housing prices from previous decades the numbers would be astronomical. Just the lumber would be $15 per board foot that’s equal to $125 per 2x6”.

You must log in or sign up to comment
22 comments:
17
MI7BZ3EW on scored.co
1 year ago 17 points (+0 / -0 / +17Score on mirror ) 2 children
Why homes cost more now than they did 100 years ago:

* People built their own homes. They didn't hire people to do it. Homes weren't mass-built until the 1950s, which is only 70 years ago.
* Homes were a lot smaller. 1,000 sq ft was considered more than enough to raise a family in. Remember, people only went home to eat or to sleep. They spent all the rest of their time outside. Even the women did all their chores outside.
* Homes were a lot simpler. Indoor plumbing wasn't really a thing. Electricity wasn't really considered a necessity. There were no central heating or cooling systems. At best, you had a wood stove in the center of the home. Insulation wasn't necessary since people would just wear warmer clothes and use blankets.
* There were no regulations, for the most part, about where you could build a home or how you had to build it.

You can still have a cheap affordable home today. You just can't do it where there is heavy regulation and you can't expect to have a modern home. Just accept the fact that the golden age of the US is over. You're not going to live a better lifestyle than your grandparents. Figure stuff out from there.

Remember, I grew up in the 1980s. In the 1970s we thought that the American Experiment was over. The 1980s seemed like borrowed time, a temporary reprieve from the inevitable. We had no idea that the economy would take off like it did. We fully expected to be living in a post-apocalyptic world as adults, if we survived the nuclear war.
11
NiggerWithAForklift on scored.co
1 year ago 11 points (+0 / -0 / +11Score on mirror ) 1 child
And look how far things have fallen from the 80s.
XBX_X on scored.co
1 year ago 2 points (+0 / -0 / +2Score on mirror )
I saw a chart recently that -- counting for employment, inflation, and purchasing power -- showed 1992 was the very best year ever in America.

That was the peak, counting for all those metrics. The common man never had it better than he did in 1992. Then came Clinton.
BlackPillBot on scored.co
1 year ago 7 points (+0 / -0 / +7Score on mirror ) 3 children
I will never understand these big ass houses where, at most, there are four people residing two of whom are usually small children. They’re more expensive in every way including upkeep, utilities,, and property tax. On top of that they take longer to clean. Almost everyone I know who has more than a one story three bedroom house rarely if ever uses the rest of the house for anything other than storage of all the shit they ConsOOm but never use. Same goes for all these houses with huge garages that they never even put the fucking cars in. They use it for more storage. It’s all so strange.

All you need is a nice big kitchen, and living area, with a short hallway that leads to two to three small bedrooms. Bedrooms are for sleeping!!! How big of a fucking room do you need to sleep in?!?
SFAM1A on scored.co
1 year ago 6 points (+0 / -0 / +6Score on mirror ) 1 child
The crazier part is how much debt they'll take out to get that, too.
BlackPillBot on scored.co
1 year ago 4 points (+0 / -0 / +4Score on mirror )
And then complain they can’t afford kids, and/or more kids.
XBX_X on scored.co
1 year ago 2 points (+0 / -0 / +2Score on mirror ) 1 child
> On top of that they take longer to clean.

That's the trap. If you can afford a house like that, then you can probably afford a maid to keep it clean. And then a landscaper. And a handyman. And then a pool boy. It never ends. Expensive things don't just cost more to buy, they also cost more to keep and maintain. It wasn't the gold miners who got rich from the gold rush, it was the merchants who sold them all the tools and clothing they needed.
BlackPillBot on scored.co
1 year ago 0 points (+0 / -0 )
Boom
MI7BZ3EW on scored.co
1 year ago 1 point (+0 / -0 / +1Score on mirror ) 1 child
I bought one of these McMansions in 2007, I believe, just before the market crashed, and I got it cheap. I was looking at reasonable houses and then I saw this new construction that was even bigger and cheaper.

We stayed there for 8 years IIRC. Then we sold at a handsome profit, found a house to fit our family (we had 3 bedrooms between us and our 5 kids) and had a good time. My neighbors were all rich DINKs (a few had kids) so our kids got to live inside of a gated community with an ornamental playground with the neighbor kids who they all got to know really well. We're still friends with some of the families who were also raising kids rather than investing in property. That house turned out to be a big win as well, since again we waited until the market started going down again to buy.

Now we live in a smaller house and we're thinking of selling it and building a small 2-bedroom house because the kids are growing up and getting married and leaving. My wife insists we need to build a hotel for our kids to bring their kids and for family events and I told her we'd be wasting our money.

You never need as much house as you think. It was a decent investment to be sure but it didn't make as much money for me as it could've. It was nice because we got a nice return but it was years and years compounded on itself, nothing close to what I was earning or making from my other investments, but nice.

What's sad is I bought this house out in the middle of nowhere specifically to be out in the middle of nowhere, but people keep trying to move out here. The house has almost doubled in price according to Zillow. I doubt that's real, since no one can get loans anymore. But at least on paper I've made even more money.

Houses are ridiculous. My great grandma grew up in a house that was a kitchen, a bedroom, a parlor, and a basement where you could store your root veggies. Next to the house was a "garage" that could fit a single car. My grandma grew up with a dirt floor in Missouri. She raised her kids in a two bedroom house. She had an actual living room but again, all of her chores were done outside. My dad raised his 8 kids in a house smaller than the house I own today. We packed the 7 boys in a single room, and the one girl in her own room, and we had a spare room that was used for sewing and computers. We actually had an upstairs and downstairs living room (in the basement.) That was in the 80s. They were paying 20% interest on their loan when they first got it.

It's all going to come crashing down soon, now that people know they don't need to live near the cities.
BlackPillBot on scored.co
1 year ago 1 point (+0 / -0 / +1Score on mirror )
Great post, and thanks for sharing. Another thing that has become “normal” again, especially since the housing crash in 08 is multi generational homes, which I’m actually happy about. I’m not happy that most of it is out of necessity due to kikes, and usury, but I’m happy it’s forcing families to actually spend more time with each other, and look out for one another again. Now more grandkids, and great grand kids will vividly remember having experiences, and good times with their grandparents.
12
Tombstone2W on scored.co
1 year ago 12 points (+0 / -0 / +12Score on mirror ) 1 child
Your dollar has been debased. But if you price it in gold- avg house was $7400 in 1950, gold at $40/oz. Which is about 185 ounces. Taken today at $2600/oz that's $480,000. Which if you opt for actual quality materials that will last you'd find they're almost equivalent. Only problem is our pay hasn't kept up with gold's rise since 1950. The difference is what the jews have stolen for the past 70 years.

What's even more infuriating is it you price the average weekly paycheck in 1950 as $60 ($3300 annual) is gold equivalent to almost $4000 weekly ($208k annual). Jews stole that value out of our money. And that's AVERAGE pay, what a trucker or school teacher could expect. Wife wouldn't have to work, big families would be easy to support.

Don't ever forgive them.

kalerg_plan on scored.co
1 year ago 2 points (+0 / -0 / +2Score on mirror ) 1 child
Inflation isn't the whole story. If the demand for labor was there, the price would rise to meet inflation. The supply of labor is bloated via immigration and globalization.
Tombstone2W on scored.co
1 year ago 1 point (+0 / -0 / +1Score on mirror )
Yeah, you'd notice that women in the workforce killed wages as well. But the debt money system relies on constant growing source of cheap labor because it offsets their inflation theft. If we all made that kind of money TVs would still be thousands of dollars because it wouldn't be slaves in Asia making them. There's trade offs, low quality shit is cheap. But the common man would still be able to have a home and a family on one income. Preserving the value of our money is more important than any of the other factors.
ScallionPancake on scored.co
1 year ago 5 points (+0 / -0 / +5Score on mirror ) 1 child
So whats the reason why its so much more? I think it is because those number crunchers are going using wrong inflation numbers.

For instance we’ve had at minimum 50% inflation the past few years yet the (((official numbers))) are nowhere near that.
SnakePlisken1776 on scored.co
1 year ago 7 points (+0 / -0 / +7Score on mirror )
Yeah the numbers are totally fake and gay. Even the people who try to calculate it off better data seem to overlook cost of materials, planned obsolescence, and productivity. They just accept that coke comes in a plastic bottle so the cost of a glass bottle just disappears into thin air, or that you just buy new shoes every few months instead of having them resoled for a fraction of the price.
Erase99 on scored.co
1 year ago 3 points (+0 / -0 / +3Score on mirror ) 1 child
SnakePlisken: This has happened all across society. Over a period of decades, there was a war between bean-counters and artisans. The bean-counters won. Now, everything is done on a cost/benefit analysis. You can see this in the prevalence of plastic as opposed to wood and glass and metal.

This is a fascinating topic and if I were a scholar I'd love to write a book about it!
SFAM1A on scored.co
1 year ago 6 points (+0 / -0 / +6Score on mirror )
Now all you have to do is get rejected from art school, get arrested, and then you're golden.
BlippiIsAPedo on scored.co
1 year ago 2 points (+0 / -0 / +2Score on mirror )
I need to write a post on this stuff.
Viewer01 on scored.co
1 year ago 0 points (+0 / -0 )
Currently in the market and started looking at houses that were over 100 years old. People couldn’t understand why.

Then got a job promotion into the middle of McMansionville and now I’m low balling boomers on their tinder boxes they haven’t taken care of yet still want a fortune for. It’s galling to look at sale prices of 300k 4 years ago and they’re holding out for >550 plus.

Also, fuck the epa and their bullshit global warming rules on refrigerants. Almost all of current ac systems will need a full replacement even over minor issues. Why? Because the new environmentally friendly refrigerant isn’t backwards compatible and companies got banned from making replacement equipment. So when your compressor dies that 2k fix is now a fucking 18k gut job.

What’s even worse is they also mandated seer 2. So now your air handler is 25% bigger, so hope your builder left plenty of room in your attic.

So many families about to pay through the nose on a mortgage and have a surprise 20k bill land in their lap.
XBX_X on scored.co
1 year ago 0 points (+0 / -0 )
> In 1950 there were 7.3 people for every home in 2024 it’s down to 4.25 so inventory is much higher.

There's is absolutely more homes today than in 1950, but families were also larger back then. It makes sense that there would be more people to every home back then. That aside, it's obvious that homes today are built out of paper, popsicle sticks and chewing gum.

Also, the number crunchers also lie about unemployment rates. If you're unemployed but work for Uber on weekends while you look for a new job, they count you as "employed." If you're unemployed but living with a partner, and you help around the house, they count you as employed -- you help your partner with chores and they "pay" you with shelter. They make up so many weird criteria to cheat the numbers.
WI-Patriot on scored.co
1 year ago 0 points (+0 / -0 )
Why prices are higher? Because the govt forces homebuilders to hire cartels (licensed plumbers, electricians, hvac, etc) for each house. Generations ago, a single crew would build the entire house, including all systems.
BringTheCat789 on scored.co
1 year ago 0 points (+0 / -0 )
>you couldn't even sell a modern home in the 1950s

I disagree. For a few reasons.

First of all, there is a bit of a bias. Not all homes from the 50s were built stout. But the ones which weren't are lost to time. You're implicitly comparing the most robust homes from the 50s to all of the homes of today, which isn't a fair comparison.

Secondly, the worsening of materials and such is balanced out by the increase in efficiency, features, square footage, and squareness. A home in the 50s may be built with quality materials, but they're built honestly like shit. They're typically cases of throwing a ton of material at a problem, without worrying about it being straight or square. The boards usually aren't even remotely the same size, let alone consistently spaced.

A home of today is massive compared to the 50s. And heating/cooling it is cheaper than ever. And, even poorly built, the home will be more comfortable than a home in the 50s. Minimal drafts, steps that aren't an ever-present fall hazard, etc.

But there is more to the "average" house price. Particularly with regard to location. While it is not my or likely your forte, living in a modern American city is more desirable to more people than living in an American city in the 50s (again, not to me or you). Even though the physical location is the same, the product of that location is vastly different. These should be taken out when calculating the average.
Toast message