"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ...


Dee D. Flint wrote:
"N2EY" wrote in message
...

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:


As I recall reading a while back, in 1950, it took 14 percent of an
average workers income to put a roof over "his head". That may have
changed a little bit! 8^)

It changed big time. Same for medical and education costs.


However as noted in later in this same post for cars (now snipped),
people
now demand more features in that house and more room in that house that
was
common in 1950. So it's an apples to oranges comparison.

Well if we cant compare houses to houses because houses to houses is
apples to oranges..............

C'mon, Dee - there has to be *some* sort of comparison that can be
made! If my comments about people paying 50 percent or more of their
take home pay to put a roof over their head compared to 14 percent way
back when are irrelevant, and if people doing 30 year mortgages vs 10 or
15 year mortgages are irrelevant, than I guess you are saying that
buying a house in 1950 is the exact equivalent of buying one in 2003?


......but it isn't because it's an apples to oranges comparison?

- Mike KB3EIA -


What I am saying is that it takes a lot more detailed analysis before you
can make a legitimate comparison. It's not as different as a surface
analysis may lead people to believe. People are choosing the 30 year
mortgage. The mortgage companies went this route not to make it easier to
buy a house but to make more money off that loan. By the way, no mortgage
company that I've had contact with would ever allow the payment + insurance
+ taxes to be as high as 50%. They would not approve the loan. Today's
starter house has airconditioning. The 1950s starter house did not. But
today's consumer has chosen the more expensive version of the product and
very, very few will buy a house without it so now it's not comparable
without doing a whole lot deeper analysis. Somehow you've got to add an
allowance for air conditioning to the older house.

Another example, take the cost to drive drive. Cost of gasoline is not the
only element to consider. You must factor in the fact that cars now last
longer not just how far the price has risen. You must also factor in that
the average car today gets far better mileage than the average car then.
You need to somehow factor in the fact that you can't even buy a stripped
down car now although they were the norm in the 1950s. People became more
and more reluctant to buy them and the makers responded. The market (i.e.
consumer) has chosen to have an inherently more expensive vehicle.

Simplistic analyses won't do it.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE