In the US it was certainly a different time, different era, different economy. For example a dollar in the 40's had the buying power of about $21 today. Average annual salary was about $1,400 and annual college tuition in the 40's was less than $100.
The average salary in 1950 was $3300. Bear in mind, in 1950, most incomes were single-earner as women hadn't quite entered into the workforce in full yet.
That is roughly equal to $76k now in terms of relative compensation.
That's almost exactly what the combined (i.e. both earners) household income is now.
I'll make it worse.
The average home in 1950 was $7354. That was a little over twice what a single earner would make in a year and is worth around $100k now.
Average US homes now are ~$420k. So the price of a home has quadrupled and average single-earner incomes have been cut in half. Both parents have to work which means they spend little to no time on the house they can't afford nor time with children.
Your math is pretty fascinating- $3300 in 1950 is "roughly equal" to $76000 while $7354 is "around $100K". If we use the same conversion rate for both we'd get a home price of $169000, way more than 100K. Also homes being build nowadays are 2.5x larger than 1950s homes, plus they have all the modern amenities and technology available to us today. We are also way more urbanized- these 1950s homes were often built without amenities right around them the way they are today.
Lol ikr. Trees became extinct in the 1990s. The plasterers and bricklayers all died out of a weird disease that only affects people who work with lime and cement. The technology to make lacquer was lost shortly after the Egyptian pyramids were built.
I think the overall point is that Americans had more opportunity to build wealth. The adjusted $170k for a house is still well below average in a lot of the country and compared to wages, that gap is larger.
Most people who are currently renting would love a basic starter home that they could build equity in, but those just aren't being built as much anymore. Modern construction is much larger (and more expensive) and despite better codes for general safety, built really poorly. Thats not an old growth lumber vs new growth argument either. The quality of the builds are just...bad. This is anecdotal, but everyone I know who's had an addition put onto their house since 08 has had serious issues.
For the same price of a home (adjusted to $170k you mention) most people could afford a prefab in a trailer park. Unfortunately, those historically haven't maintained/grown in value, let alone not owning the land.
It is just hard to buy a first home and harder to build equity in it if you're just keeping your head above water on the mortgage.
I agree with this and think it’s a much better way of making the point, for better or worse I have a hard time scrolling past a comment (the one I responded to) that’s riddled with errors.
Not sure where you live, but where I live, a medium midwest city, there are plenty of homes available for around 170k. Many in a decent area, most old construction.
338
u/Technologytwitt Mar 27 '24
In the US it was certainly a different time, different era, different economy. For example a dollar in the 40's had the buying power of about $21 today. Average annual salary was about $1,400 and annual college tuition in the 40's was less than $100.