Mike Coslo wrote:
N2EY wrote:
"Kim" wrote in message
Yeah, I am glad you re-brought that back up, Dee. I have often wondered how
"close" a comparison it is when we start comparing the wage:cost of living
ratio from yesteryears and today. Because, we do have "bigger, better"
ideas in our products today.


Sure - in fact, my current home (built 1950-51) is a case study in the
differences. I doubt anyone would build a house like mine new today in
a similar neighborhood, but a half-century ago it was a pretty
standard "little box made of ticky-tacky" design. And most of the
differences (more bathrooms, bigger, more feature-filled kitchen, AC
from the getgo) cost more than just simple square footage add-ons.

If you want a recent document with an outline of relative housing costs:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housi.../afford95.html

It shows over a recent time period what I have noted over a longer time
period, which is that less people can afford to buy a modestly priced
house. In 1995, it was 44 percent could not afford to do this, an
increase from 40 percent in 1988.

Not really a recent-enough time period, however. Housing affordability
is volatile since it strongly depends on things like mortgage interest
rates and non-salary income, which can vary greatly. Obviously interest
rates have varied greatly in the downward direction in very recent years,
and we had a few good capital gains years before that.

If you look at this one

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housi.../q303tab5.html

you'll see that the rate of home ownership in the US, which varied
between 63% and 66% for the 30 years prior to 1995, took a jump starting
in about 1997 and was at 68.4% in the quarter just ended. It seems
hard to argue that houses have gotten less affordable over the long
term when the fraction of people who demonstrate they can afford
to own a house by doing so remained fairly constant for so long and
actually took a significant upturn in the last few years.

Dennis Ferguson