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”.
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.