Matthew Yglesias » American Housing, 1900-1990

Aug 24th, 2009 at 2:28 pm

American Housing, 1900-1990

Via Brad DeLong, an interesting illustration of improved standards of living across the 20th century:

It strikes me as noteworthy that the trend toward bigger-and-bigger houses has continued apace over the past 20 years even though by 1990 the problem of overcrowded housing had become the exclusive province of the very poor. Part of the story is that we have a number of policies—ranging from odd tax incentives to land use regulations and beyond—in place that encourage people to live in big houses. This is not a very efficient use of valuable energy and land resources, and it arguably intensifies the problem of providing an adequate standard of housing to the relatively small remaining minority that can’t afford decent shelter.

Comments
22

22 Responses to “American Housing, 1900-1990”

tatere Says:
August 24th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
i wonder what their definition of “boarders and lodgers” covers. in the sense of “having strangers live with you to help make the rent”, i’ve got to think the number is higher than 2%.
Sycophant of the Bourgeois Says:
August 24th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
Every American has a right to a washing machine. The fact that people may be walking around in dirty clothes is obvious evidence of a market failure.
CParis Says:
August 24th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
It strikes me as noteworthy that the trend toward bigger-and-bigger houses has continued apace over the past 20 years even though by 1990 the problem of overcrowded housing had become the exclusive province of the very poor.

Chart porn!
This chart shows very little information relating to the increase in the size of houses. We don’t know if the reduction in the number of persons per room is related to more bedrooms or smaller sized households.
cleek Says:
August 24th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
9% don’t have a phone ?
Just Dropping By Says:
August 24th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
9% don’t have a phone?

The second column is only through 1990, so this is before cheap cell plans came along. When I was attending an “inner city” elementary school in the late 1980s, there were kids whose families did not have a phoneline.
Mimikatz Says:
August 24th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
I’d like to see the up-to-date figures. There have been several stories on TV and in the newspaper about people house sharing, aka taking in boarders. Also family members doubling up.

I think that the trend peaked in 2007 (remember the real estate bubble?) and now many people are smaller houses/more crowded quarters. It is the McMansions that aren’t selling so well, and of course foreclosures are a probnlem here in CA and a few other places.
pseudonymous in nc Says:
August 24th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
There are other elements to the story — the rise of the home office (with its tax incentives), the dispersal of family and friends so that spare bedroom(s) are perceived as necessary, albeit on a sporadic basis, as well as the shift of activities from shared to private space — the home theatre, the home gym, the room with the pool table, etc.

It’s tricky to see this in strict land/energy tradeoffs — how much does a multiplex use, as opposed to people watching Netflix downloads at home? how much does a gym use, as opposed to having a room with a stepper and some weights? — but there are undoubted social tradeoffs, as it’s easier to live in the exurban boonies if certain things can be delivered to your door or contained by the walls of your house.
pseudonymous in nc Says:
August 24th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
in the sense of “having strangers live with you to help make the rent”, i’ve got to think the number is higher than 2%.

Absolutely. It’s hard not to think of several classes of apartment-sharers that don’t fit the old-fashioned idea of having someone board in a spare bedroom who’ll get bacon and eggs from the house matriach in the morning. House-sharing amoung young professionals may be more common in London than NYC or LA, just as a factor of housing stock, but the population of student roomies in non-dorm accommodation should account for well over that 2% of households on its own.

Does the Census treat students as residents of their family/vacation home, or their college accommodation? That might account for the disparity.
fostert Says:
August 24th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
I think what’s interesting is which of these things people get first when they have the chance. If TVs didn’t require electricity, they would be the first purchase. But they do, so people get electricity just to have TV. I’ve seen houses that are literally made from cow dung with electricity, a TV, and a satellite dish. But no electric lights, no running water, and no toilets. They will get a toilet before running water, though. They’ll just have a bucket of water next to the toilet to flush it.
Spiffy McBang Says:
August 24th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
This, obviously, has to stand out:

Flush toilets: 97%
Televisions: 99%

By extension:

People who crap in Depends while never moving from the couch: 2%
StevenAttewell Says:
August 24th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
An interesting chart, but “it arguably intensifies the problem of providing an adequate standard of housing to the relatively small remaining minority that can’t afford decent shelter” isn’t particularly new.

Housing for the poor is generally a market failure, because unless you squeeze people in like sardines, you generally won’t turn as much of a profit. We’ve known this for over seventy years.

Regarding renting vs. owning, one of the ironies of course was that LBJ’s HUD Act of 1965, which established Section 8, originally proposed a universal system of rental assistance to make up for the way that Federal policy benefits owners over renters.
Cranky Observer Says:
August 24th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
First, I’ll have to question that 0% with central heat in 1900. My first house, circa 1880, was built with central heat, and while there was probably a lot of existing stock without it there was also a lot of building going on between 1880-1900.

Second, maybe it is my age and upbringing but I don’t see 1 bedroom per child as being a necessary or even necessarily desirable goal. I always shared as a child with from 1-3 siblings. Our children shared until they reached their teens and I think it was better for them to do so.

Cranky
serial catowner Says:
August 24th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Matt’s concern-trollery about the homeless always irritates me. People who are homeless typically have less money than Matt spends on groceries each month. Lowering the typical housing cost in their city by 10%, or even 50%, isn’t going to help them- they still won’t be able to afford it.

This is not an impossible problem to solve. A non-profit can build simple housing that is rented to means-qualified people for about the cost of the interest on the principal. This could be even simpler by just providing parking, electricity, and water and septic systems for people living in cars and campers. Take some engines out of Humvees and let the poor have them.

This still leaves the problems of the low incomes of the poor, but these problems should be dealt with in other ways than messing with zoning and building codes. Nobody here is looking for a solution to our health care crisis by changing the building codes for hospitals.

And yes, you do wonder about the list-maker who didn’t realize central heating has been around for centuries. List made in England, perhaps.
McMansion Says:
August 24th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
It strikes me as noteworthy that the trend toward bigger-and-bigger houses has continued apace over the past 20 years even though by 1990 the problem of overcrowded housing had become the exclusive province of the very poor. Part of the story is that we have a number of policies—ranging from odd tax incentives to land use regulations and beyond—in place that encourage people to live in big houses.

Yes, how dare anyone want a house bigger than the minimum required to prevent overcrowding. Don’t people realize that regular crowding is a GOOD thing?
Cranky Observer Says:
August 24th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
> via Brad DeLong

One thing to keep always in mind is that DeLong likes broad, hopeful, just-so stories of the great upward sweep of progress and how the Science of Economics(tm) and its servant, capitalism (properly regulated of course) made that possible. He is quite knowledgeable and has a fund of historical references which he will beat and pound as hard as necessary to fit into that chosen narrative.

Cranky

And don’t ever, EVER mention Marx to him.
steve duncan Says:
August 24th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Geez, NO ONE in 1900 chose to spend money on a television?!?! C’mon! This chart has to be bogus.
JonF Says:
August 24th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
Re: in the sense of “having strangers live with you to help make the rent”, i’ve got to think the number is higher than 2%.

If it’s truly total strangers moving in, it probably is pretty rare. Most people I’ve known who take in a roommate choose a friend or relative.

rE: First, I’ll have to question that 0% with central heat in 1900.

This may be referring to forced air furnaces which came along later. Though boiler-model central heating did exist a century ago.

Re: Second, maybe it is my age and upbringing but I don’t see 1 bedroom per child as being a necessary or even necessarily desirable goal.

Indeed. While small families like ours had one bedroom per kid, the larger families when I was growing up doubled their kids up.
joe from Lowell Says:
August 24th, 2009 at 6:46 pm
Sycophant of the Bourgeois Says:
August 24th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
Every American has a right to a washing machine. The fact that people may be walking around in dirty clothes is obvious evidence of a market failure.

I’m sure this is supposed to be clever, but it serves only to remind the reader of the striking difference between doing your washing at a laundromat and not having health care.

That, and to generate a sense of disgust towards the person who would produce such an appalling false equivalence.
ScentOfViolets Says:
August 24th, 2009 at 8:01 pm
The change in technology, population composition, and type of economy is so great that this isn’t even an apples and lettuce comparison; more like an apples and telephone comparison.

As I hear the stories from one side of the family, back in the day – back when the U.S. could still be said with some merit to be running an agrarian economy – farm workers boarded with the farmer who employed them. Immigrants as a percentage of the American populace were much higher as well. This, plus the fact that families tended to larger plus the fact that technology as we thoughtlessly expect it to be was in its infancy goes a long way towards explaining these statistics. Finally, per Elizabeth Warren, housing statistics can be extremely misleading. There was a major shift some time ago between building housing for families on the lower rungs of the economy – people not as old and not as skilled – to building housing for the top 15%. According to her, over the last thirty or so years, the average family has gained one bedroom or one bathroom . . . but not both.

Yeah, times are better. But this is by no means able to be demonstrated by some sort of straight wealth comparison.
JonF Says:
August 24th, 2009 at 8:36 pm
Re: According to her, over the last thirty or so years, the average family has gained one bedroom or one bathroom . . . but not both.

That makes sense I suppose. I can see a lot of working class people, who grew up with just one bathroom, opting for a second one, whereas higher on the income scale people who already had two or three bathrooms would go for an additional bedroom instead.
In Which Tense Matters « The Ruling Zeitgeist Says:
August 25th, 2009 at 7:44 am
[...] 25, 2009 by Jeff Via Matt Yglesias via Brad DeLong, we find the following chart from one of the UC professor’s [...]
Bob Calder Says:
August 28th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
It would have been more interesting to see adoption curves starting at the appropriate dates.

Housing needs to be divided between single family and multiple family to be meaningful.

As mentioned above, average family size changes graphed against housing gross square footage woud measure the soft quality of needing more living space that we complain about. For instance, gross square footage was going down between the late 1970s and the early 1980s, stressing high efficiency. Then bathrooms got oddly large and pillars appeared at the door.

I’m not sure if a McMansion is a pretentious small house or one of those 9,000 square foot mall-like things sports figures live in. Both are equally repulsive.

Matt Yglesias

American Housing, 1900-1990

22 Responses to “American Housing, 1900-1990”

Blogroll