Re: US rural life


"David Friedman" <ddfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ddfr-6D8129.19363025022006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <cE8Mf.72307$H%4.10444@pd7tw2no>,
"Karl Johanson" <karljohanson@xxxxxxx> wrote:

"Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:dtopmc$ga7$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Danny Low <dlow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Even today this once radical notion still influences people's
attitude towards land ownership. It is better to own than to rent
when it comes to your home. The only difference between then and
now is simply the size of the plot one needs.

There is one other rather imporant difference: In the 19th
century,
and much of the 20th, the average American could afford to buy a
house
and the land it's on. This is no longer possible for most
Americans.

In another thread you said, "I'm all for unrestrained growth. People
produce more than they
consume, so more people means more wealth. "

More wealth & most Americans can't afford a home & land.

Karl Johanson

Checking the current webbed Statistical Abstract, the price index of
new
one-family homes has gone from 54 in 1979 to 141.9 in 2004. Median
sales
price of existing one family homes has increased a little
faster--almost
tripling from 1980 to 2004.

The CPI has gone up from 82.4 in 1980 to 188.9 in 2004. So housing has
become relatively more expensive, but not by a lot. I haven't checked
figures earlier than that--do you know what they are?

Per capita personal income was 10,134 in 1980, and 32,907 in 2004,
however. So housing prices have actually risen by less than per capita
income over that period, not more.

Going back to the 1950 Stat Abstract, it shows that in 1890, 47.8% of
all dwelling units were owner occupied. From then until 1940 the
percentage fluctuated, and was actually lower in 1940 (43.6%) than in
1890. In 1947,there were 39 million occupied dwelling units, of which
21
million were owner occupied, or 54%. Currently, of all housing units,
about 60% are owner occupied. So the percentage of families who own
their own homes is considerably higher at present than at any point
from
1890 to 1947.

Those figures are for housing units--they don't distinguish apartments
from houses, although I would expect most of the owner occupied units
to
be houses. Currently, single family detached housing units make up a
considerable majority of the total number of housing units--75 million
out of 121 million, or about 62%. The figure for 1940 is 24 million
out
of 37 million, or 65%. So the fraction of housing units that are
single
family detached units has fallen a little, but not much.

I couldn't find a figure for the percentage of families in owner
occupied single family detached housing, but if it isn't a majority it
must be at least a large minority. And, of course, some of the ones
who
rent instead of owning do so for reasons other than not being able to
afford to own.

So I think it very unlikely that your claim that "most Americans can't
afford a home & land" or your "This is no longer possible for most
Americans" is true. And it appears that the historical pattern is the
opposite of what you imply--the fraction of homes that are owner
occupied has been rising, not falling, over the course of the
twentieth
century.

Can you offer any evidence to support your claims?

Just Kieth's claim.

Karl Johanson


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: US rural life
    ... attitude towards land ownership. ... More wealth & most Americans can't afford a home & land. ... So housing prices have actually risen by less than per capita ... Currently, of all housing units, ...
    (rec.arts.sf.fandom)
  • papist multi$million nincompoops housing deceptions exposed
    ... "LOWERING land cost as a way to reduce new Housing Board flat prices is ... Most of cost of HDB flats comes from the land cost component. ... suggestion by Worker's PAP to sell land at a more reasonable price. ... How do we maximise the benefits of public housing for Singaporeans in the ...
    (soc.culture.singapore)
  • Re: Future of Hawaii: For rich only?
    ... The point is not the party in and of itself, but the fact that this one party - whichever and whatever it is/was - had control at the state level for 40 years...and this problem of some much land owned by so few entities still remains today. ... There was also fear that the large landowners and the Big 5 had undue influence in local politics. ... Hawaii's land owned by so few entities, then you - in my judgement - really are not in position to complain about the high cost of housing there. ... Hawaii Legislature discovered that, while the State and Federal Governments owned almost 49% of the State's land, another 47% was in the hands of only 72 private landowners. ...
    (soc.culture.hawaii)
  • Re: Workfare, not welfare
    ... Admittedly measures that restrict housing supply (eg planning ... and the current tax regime. ... for imposing a land tax on large holdings only. ... speculators could try to get it re-zoned into a lower-tax ...
    (uk.politics.misc)
  • Re: Workfare, not welfare
    ... what he would like with his own land. ... If the tenant cannot pay the rent then the arrangement under or ... housing benefit or not. ... I would be in favour of some measures that rig the housing market in ...
    (uk.politics.misc)