What $10,990 bought in 1955....

[PCIntern]

Remember when prices were so interesting that when asked what price was paid for a home, my mom and dad used to say the above number rather than 11000 dollars. The mortgage and taxes were 102 dollars monthly which was about a week's net for the family in those days. This is what the cinder-block house consisted of:

Three bedrooms
One bath
Living room
Kitchen with stainless steel countertops, garbage disposal (batch type), dishwasher, oven/range, refrigerator, and real wood cabinets with brass hinges.
Central Air Conditioner
Utility room with Bendix Washer/dryer, incinerator (!), instant hot water coil rather than water heater, thus infinite supply of hot water
shingled roof in any color desired
poured concrete window boxes
Large multi-pane bay window
ONE-THIRD of an acre of land
Mecatum driveway and carport (concrete reinforced)
Planted grass and proper grading
Sewer system (rather than septic tank or cesspool(!)

This price was level for years AND the schools systems in suburban Philly in this particular region, while not fantastic, were serviceable. The neighborhood was mixed-religious (although not racially integrated) and fairly tolerant of most folk. People enjoyed the air, the ground, and the conviviality. We were an evolving, striving, hopeful group for the most part, even though there was the usual marital/personal/family stuff going on.

Just a reflection on a quiet Sunday...

[NMDemDist2]

1. the sad part is that any 'self respecting' family today

would be aghast at 'only' one bathroom and the 1100SF size of a 3 bedroom home.

hopefully this housing stock will be back in fashion

[Johnny Rico]

7. Why is it sad that families can now afford larger houses?

[NutmegYankee]

10. Actually, many families cannot.

That said, it is a sad reflection on the incessant materialism and bigger is better attitude of modern America that a home that raised many families is no longer considered big enough for that task.

[Johnny Rico]

14. Many familes couldn't back then either.

That said, it is a sad reflection on the incessant materialism and bigger is better attitude of modern America that a home that raised many families is no longer considered big enough for that task.

I've never bought the, "If it was good enough back then, it's good enough now" mindset. While it's foolish to buy more house than you can afford, if you can afford a large house, then why not? Sometimes bigger is better.

[NutmegYankee]

20. Buying more house than is affordable is a major reason we had this crash.

The problem is many people will strain their finances to go big rather than buy a smaller home that is very comfortable to afford. The "bigger is better" belief in the US is so strong it will override their judgement. It is my opinion, but I do believe that our hyper-materialism is eating away at the middle class. This "I must have this shiny now" culture isn't leading us to a good place.

[Johnny Rico]

23. As I said, it's foolish to buy more than one can afford.

As for "hyper-materialism", how people spend their money is a personal choice. I rather like "stuff", myself, and it's no one's business but my own how many toys I purchase.

[NutmegYankee]

25. "it's no one's business but my own how many toys I purchase"

You wouldn't by chance happen to work on Wall Street?

[Johnny Rico]

26. Do you think it *is* your business?

If so, what mechanism do you propose to curtail my purchases?

If not, what's the point?

[NutmegYankee]

27. Welcome to the wonderful world of opinions.

That's the beauty of Freedom. You can buy all the toys you want, and I can hold any opinion I damn well feel like holding. I find greed quite distasteful and I have a low opinion of people who feel they must constantly show off wealth. But hey, I'm frugal.

[Johnny Rico]

31. We're copacetic, then.

I'll continue to buy all my toys (I don't show them off except to friends who share a common interest in them, FWIW). My only reaction to people who find my greed distasteful is amusement, so we're golden!

But hey, I'm frugal.

So am I...I only buy what I can afford, don't have a penny of debt, and am saving heavily towards retirement.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

48. Nobody is suggesting that your purchases be curtailed or

in any way regulated. Buy what you want; nobody is stopping you or trying to say you should be prohibited from buying the biggest, fanciest house you want.

However, maybe it would be a good thing for our country and the world if people would voluntarily choose to buy houses and other things that aren't necessarily the biggest or the best, and instead invested in those that produced a little smaller footprint on the environment, that used up fewer resources, that ate up less land and burned less fuel for heat and light, that didn't result in the destruction of woodlands and wetlands to build. Maybe it would be nice if people would consider such things -- how am I benefiting or harming my city, my world? -- as well as what they just want for themselves.

Or is that too much of a hippie kind of worldview for you?

[Johnny Rico]

58. To each their own.

Or is that too much of a hippie kind of worldview for you?

Yes.

As I said, though, to each their own. If you want that to be your worldview, encouraging others to do likewise...go for it!

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

73. It's interesting that most other animals understand instinctively

that it's not a good idea to shit in their own nests. Seems like a lot of members of the Homo sapiens species have forgotten this fundamental principle, or have chosen to ignore it because it interferes with their personal desires: I want a big, fancy house and I can afford it, so fuck the woods and the wetlands; fuck the environment; I'll burn as much fuel as I want because I can and I want to. Too bad if that makes other people's lives less pleasant or healthy.

But, of course, human activity being what it is and having the effects it does, when you shit in your own nest you are also shitting in mine, and everybody else's. So yes, I do take issue with the Randian-objectivist-libertarian notion of doing whatever you want and to hell with everyone else.

Eventually, of course, it will bite them in the butt as well. Dirty air and water and depleted resources hurts everyone, even the 1%-ers who can afford the resource-sucking mansions.

[hfojvt]

29. "But what is the great bulk of advertising other than the stimulation of greed, envy and avarice?'

EF Schumacher, Good Work, p. 26

"The idea that each individual should pursue his own private interests without regard to the needs of the community, that community needs will be taken care of automatically if that occurs; the idea that people's wants are self-generated and autonomous, not shaped by social forces; the idea that people have a right to keep what is 'theirs' and the denial that differentials in wealth are a function of particular social arrangements rather than a simple matter of hard work, initiative, or capacity; the effort to solve social problems by an accumulation of separate individual choices and a suspicion of collective efforts; the failure to recognize how much individual well being o individual commitments depend on a social matrix and on feedback from others - it is these kinds of individualism that I find troublesome, not a concern with individual liberty, fulfillment, uniqueness, or intrinsic worth. In some respects it might be best if the same word was not even used for the two clusters, if perhaps the first were designated as a concern with individuality and the second atomism." Paul Wachtel, The poverty of affluence, pp 138-39

[LanternWaste]

77. Yet still open to criticism...

"how people spend their money is a personal choice..."

Yet still open to criticism... as are all of our personal choices to one degree or another.

[Johnny Rico]

78. Absolutely. Criticize away!

Of course, such criticism may be utterly ignored or scoffed at....

[Johnson20]

53. Boy +++++1000. n/t

[NMDemDist2]

15. right! but a smaller older home will elicit

"poor dears" type of comments from the McMansion crowd

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

16. The problem is that many can't.

And never really could. Hence the bursting of the housing bubble. People were seduced into buying McMansions by mortgage lenders (sometimes fraudulently) on the assumption that the value of the house would always appreciate - so that even if they ran into financial difficulty later they could at least sell at a profit. But that isn't what happened, obviously. These days you could probably buy a foreclosed McMansion at a fire sale price, but there's no longer any guarantee that the value will increase the way it did a few years ago, until the bubble popped.

And then there's the issue of wasted resources. Does every family really need a huge house with energy-wasting cathedral ceilings and central air and lots of bathrooms and a three-car garage and a vast yard with a pool and a patio? And why mortgage yourself to the eyeballs for a big house when you could save that money for the kids' college or retirement?

[Johnny Rico]

21. Who's to say what a family "needs"?

If someone wants to buy a huge house and they can afford it, why is it anyone else's concern? It's their money, they can spend it as they like.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

28. Ah - there's the rub. What does "afford it" mean?

Of course people should be free to buy what they can afford, and if you can manage the payments on a $500K house, go for it. But where the wicket got sticky is that many people (with the encouragement of some unscrupulous real estate sales people and mortgage brokers) were led to believe they could afford something they really couldn't. So they bought houses that were so expensive that they could barely afford to furnish them -- and when dad or mom lost their job or a kid got sick, they couldn't make the mortgage payments. And after the housing market collapsed they couldn't even get their investment back. And there's this - in my area, the neighborhoods where people were getting their utilities shut off weren't so much the poor neighborhoods, but the fancy new housing developments in the suburbs. The utility bills for a big place in this cold climate can be absolutely crushing.

So - if "affording" a big house means you can buy furniture, and that you can keep the lights on and make the mortgage payments if you lose your job because you have plenty of money in the bank to carry you through hard times, then you truly can afford it.

[Johnny Rico]

32. In other words, some people made foolish choices and suffered the consequences.

Shrug.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

35. That's exactly what the Republicans say about the housing crash.

Although fraudulent mortgage lending, where documents were falsified and people were made to believe they could afford the purchase, isn't my idea of "foolish choices." Too bad it wrecked the economy for everybody.

[Johnny Rico]

39. And in such cases (fraudulent lending & falsified documents) the lenders are at fault.

This doesn't take away from the fact that many people foolishly overextended themselves in the absence of such fraud.

[sarcasmo]

38. Sure you are in the right place?

[Johnny Rico]

41. Yup.

[oldhippie]

33. ... why is it anyone else's concern?

Because it generates envy, that's why.

[Johnny Rico]

40. Surely that's the problem of the envious, then...

[oldhippie]

76. yep ....

Plenty of them here. Kind of a natural thing, I guess.

[krispos42]

82. 1. Often, they can't

The tax structure has pushed a lot of money into the hands of people that invest in real estate simply to make even more money; as a result, housing prices are inflated.

2. Average family size is smaller, ergo a family needs less room, right? Or at least not a huge amount of room.

3. A larger house consumes more fuel to heat and cool the air, as more energy is lost to the environment.

[Johnny Rico]

84. While it can be interesting to discuss what a family "needs",

what's more germaine is what a family wants (and can afford). As for the increased costs of utilities in a larger home, that's simply part of the cost of ownership. If you can afford it and are willing to pay it, why not?

[krispos42]

91. It's not "a" family, though, that's the issue.

It's millions of families.

What's the statistic? That if all 7 billion people on earth had a standard of living like the average American, we would need 4 more planets to cultivate and fish and mine and harvest and drill?

Something like that.

Besides, can they afford it? Aside from the whole "suckered in by bad mortgages and lying brokers" thing, the real cost of things like natural gas, coal, and fuel oil is not reflected in the unit price at delivery.

[Johnny Rico]

92. Let's assume for the sake of argument that you're entirely correct. What now?

What do you propose be done about it? While you might persuade a few people at the margine to live more simply, the millions of families you just spoke of will chose not to do so...no amount of "tut-tutting" at them or presenting visions of an environmental apocalypse will change their mind.

Are you going to argue that The State should make it illegal for a family to have a primary dwelling over a certain square footage, or would you argue for somewhat less draconian measures? If not, are you resigned to the fact that millions will continue to conspicuously consume?

[krispos42]

93. Well, there are a bunch of ways it could be done

Federal, state, and local levels would need to get involved, of course.

But since the direct issue isn't really the energy a house consumes, but rather what is consumed to produce the energy, the first thing we can do is create a carbon-credit exchange, where carbon pollution credits are bought and sold like shares of stock. Every year, reduce the number of carbon credits issued. This would encourage non-carbon-producing technologies.

We can shift tax credits and subsidies away from oil wells and towards wind farms and solar farms. The mandated increases in automotive fuel economy are going to help as well.

On a state level, utilities can be required to "run the meters backwards", so that a person only pays for the net monthly energy consumed if they have generating capacity on their land, such as solar cells or wind turbines. They produce small, a domestic rooftop-sized wind turbines that can produce a few hundred to a couple of thousand watts in a good wind. So subsidizing the installation of solar cells and/or wind turbines on houses would be a good start.

On a local level, cities and counties can adjust their property tax codes. We have a progressive income tax; would a progressive property tax be such a bad thing? Something based on domestic square footage?

Two-and-four family houses are also a bit more efficient than stand-along houses; having a slightly lower tax rate for those kinds of houses might be helpful.


Ultimately, we have to go over to nuclear fusion power, but that's still a bit away. But if we can achieve that... we can stop worrying quite so much about pollution.

[Jennicut]

81. I have one bathroom and we own a small cape.

It is considered a starter house. We moved in at 25 and 26 but ten years later we are staying put. The mortgage is low. And it is a house that was built in 1953. It is holding up pretty well.

[joeglow3]

83. My wife and I are looking at a 5,000 square foot house

We have 3 kids.

[NNN0LHI]

2. And don't forget damn near the entire thing was built out of asbestos and painted with lead paint

At least the one I grew up in that was built during the 1950's was.

Don

[PCIntern]

3. we burned everything in the incinerator including plastics...

and so did everyone else...

[Frustratedlady]

4. We bought our four-square in 1964

Paid $14K at $75/month, plus taxes that were around $120/year. Extra deep double lot, 4-bedrooms, 1 bath, lr/dr/kit, 2 porches, full basement and garage. It was built in 1903, but was solid and homey. Still standing while newer homes are losing their wood siding due to rot. Go figure.

[ananda]

5. Hmm.

In October 52 my dad bought us a three bedroom house for $7500.
In December 62 we moved into a larger five bedroom house he got
for $22,000.

Boy times have changed!

[NMDemDist2]

12. $22K won't even buy a new car these days....

sigh

[Johnny Rico]

18. Sure it will.

Honda Civic, Chevy Aveo, Ford Focus...etc.

[Johnny Rico]

6. Taking inflation into account...

http://www.fiftiesweb.com/pop/prices-1955.htm

Average cost of a house: $22,000
Average income: $4,137

Inflate the cost of everything by a factor of 10, and things haven't changed that much.

[FreeJoe]

80. And yet we still have pennies

We got along just fine with pennies as the smallest unit of currency when it was worth more than a dime is today. Why can't we stop minting pennies and nickles? A good clue should be that when a unit of currency becomes worth so little that stores leave out little bowls for people to leave/use that piece of currency, it is no longer needed.

OK, I'll stop ranting.

[Johnny Rico]

85. Complete agreement. While we're at it, let's stop making dollar bills.

People won't use dollar coins in any significant numbers untill dollar bills are out of circulation.

[senseandsensibility]

8. I want one of those instant hot water coils.

Why don't they use those anymore? Also, an older home I lived in a while back had a central vacuum. That was cool, and it was not an expensive home at all.

[catnhatnh]

37. The "city coil" was great during the winter....

...but since it sat in the tank of the boiler, the boiler had to run year round.

[hunter]

72. They still make them, old Pennsylvania style...

...if shoveling coal is your thing.

http://www.keystoker.com/products.php#cfb

I don't think the California Air Resources Board would approve of that, and the nearest place to get coal around here is a hundred miles away.

But we do have instant unlimited hot water from our Bosch Aquastar.

I thought we might save energy, but that didn't happen until the kids moved off to college. With a tank water heater everyone was a little fearful of using all the hot water because the next person to take a shower woul not be happy. We are not a good-tempered lot. Unlimited hot water means teens can stay in the shower as long as they want, or until somebody pounds on the door, and they do.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

9. In 1956 we moved into this house:

This is a recent photo but in 1956 it didn't look much different (the trees were smaller). It had a living room, dining room, kitchen, a partly-finished basement, single-car garage, one bathroom and 3 smallish bedrooms; no air conditioning except for a window unit. There was a decent-sized back yard with a couple of apple trees and some rose bushes. I think my parents paid less than $20K for it at the time. In about 1965 they added a den and a half-bath at the back of the house. The neighborhood was considered solidly middle-class at the time - the dads (moms mostly weren't working in those days) included a banker, a lawyer, a business owner and a high school principal. There were a lot of kids; we just roamed from one house or back yard to the next, but the houses were fairly close together and everybody knew where everybody else's kids were.

I sometimes watch that "House Hunters" show and chuckle at the young couples who MUST have at least two bathrooms, one bedroom per kid as well as a guest bedroom, a master bath with two sinks and a granite-topped vanity off their bedroom, granite countertops and stainless steel appliances in the kitchen, a two-car garage and a deck. And I wonder how we managed to surivive in that little house, with three kids and only one bathroom. And no granite countertops.

[hfojvt]

11. you had central air in 1955?

That's kinda hard to believe. It was sort of a big deal when we got central air in the 1970s. Of course, dad, being as cheap as me, only ran it about twice a year. He also had the advantage of working in an air conditioned office.

Other things we added to the house

dad finished the basement - laid down tile, put up ceiling tile, and built walls
carpeting for the wood floors, one room at a time
a second garage
a screened porch
then, finally, as the family was getting smaller - a family room off of the old dining room.

[NutmegYankee]

13. I think he means one of those huge "window" AC units that can cool a house. nt

[PCIntern]

42. No...I meant central air...

unit in the attic...
ducts to all rooms..

[NutmegYankee]

51. That's defiantly a rarity for that era.

I don't have any AC, either window or central, but that's New England for you.

[PCIntern]

61. 'twas...

we were the only neighborhood in this price range that had it...it was a very big deal...for its day.

[tammywammy]

55. My house was built in 1951, and didn't come with central a/c

It was added later, but there are still houses in the neighborhood without it. No dishwasher either.

[MiniMe]

17. Not to mention the dishwasher

We got a dishwasher in the '60s. It wasn't installed, we rolled it out and hooked it up to the sink. I find the OP a bit hard to believe.

[hfojvt]

24. I forgot our dishwasher was the same way

I think it came in the late 1960s or early 1970s. It was not in the kitchen either. It was in a utility room above the stairs to the basement and just to the right of the back door (to the garage). It was hooked up to a sink with hoses for water and draining.

However, we were in the midwest, so other parts of the country, and wealthier households, may have gotten things decades before we did.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

30. We had one of those.

In fact, I still do. My kitchen doesn't have enough room to have one installed.

[The Genealogist]

68. I had one of those dishwashers in one of my residences

I LOVED that house, it was a 1926 duplex, was built as a duplex. But no dishwasher, and the sink was very shallow. I also don't like doing the dishes all that much. So, my partner and I bought a portable dishwasher from Sears (would have been 1999 or 2000). It was not very expensive, really, and it worked quite well. When we moved to Florida in 2003, we gave it to my partner's brother to use. He sold it, the little snot.

[proud2BlibKansan]

44. DH's family built a house in 1950 and had central air

Not common in the 50s but also not impossible.

[PCIntern]

86. Garden Lane, Bensalem (formerly known as Cornwells Hts.), PA 19020

Because I don't REALLY think that you're calling me a liar...

[hfojvt]

19. oh and a dryer?

We had a clothes line - inside and out

[mrmpa]

22. My old rule of thumb was to.....

not pay more for a car than my parents paid for their house ($10,500 in 1965). Like I said that was an old rule of thumb.

[quaker bill]

34. My first house was a little bit smaller

I bought it in 1979 for $30K. It still stands pretty much the way I left it. Today you could not touch it for less than about $170K. In 2007 probably $250K minimum, same the house, built in 1947.

[sarcasmo]

36. Now plenty of people live have to survive on 11,000 a year.

[Johnny Rico]

45. If by "plenty", you mean 9%, you're quite right.

http://schools-wikipedia.org/wp/h/Household_income_in_the_United_States.htm

Mind you, this figure is for household income, not individual. Note that this doesn't take government-supplied benefits into account.

[NutmegYankee]

59. He was referring to personal income.

Which is 19%. That's plenty of people.

[Johnny Rico]

60. I was looking for personal income, but only came across household income.

Do you have the reference for that figure? I'm curious if it includes (for instance) 20 year old college students who are still dependent on their parent's income. In any case, I would presume it doesn't include government-supplied benefits.

[NutmegYankee]

62. Here's a Wiki with the 2008 US Census American Community Survey data.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States

[Johnny Rico]

63. Thanks! A nitpick (and it's only that) on the 19% figure, though:

19.75% are below $12,499, so the percent below $11,000 is probably closer to 16% or 17%. Your point still stands, though, that's certainly a substantial number of people. I would be curious what the percentage would be amongst 25 to 60 year olds.

And as always, it should be remembered that government-supplied benefits will change these numbers substantially.

[NutmegYankee]

75. I guessed 19% because incomes have dropped since 2008.

Especially on the low end.

[proud2BlibKansan]

43. My parents paid $27K for a house on an acre of land

Payments were $107 a month. My mom told me she about had a stroke realizing they would be making mortgage payments of over $100. LOL

[PCIntern]

47. I was 23 years old when I saw my first $100 bill in real life...

...but don't get me wrong: the "old days" sucked...cold war, nearly inevitable death following almost any cancer diagnosis, horrendous pollutants EVERYWHERE (now it's more subtle), overt institutionalized racism, sexism, and God-only-knows what elsem and a million other ills. Sure wasn't "Father Knows Best"...

[proud2BlibKansan]

49. The story I tell whenever anyone talks about the good ole days --

It was about 1963 or 1964 I think. I was 10, maybe 11 years old. Our neighbor from two doors up knocked on our door in the middle of the night. She had her kids with her. They were about my age, maybe a year or so older and a year or so younger. She had been beaten badly by her husband and wanted my parents to help her. So my mom got busy cleaning up her wounds while my dad called the police. The police refused to even come to our house, because they didn't interfere in private family matters. So my dad called someone in this neighbor's family - her brother I think - and he came and picked up the woman and her children.

Yes, what good ole days they were when a husband could beat the shit out of his wife in front of his kids and it's all considered a private family matter by the police.

[tammywammy]

50. Even later in the early 70s

My mom was divorcing a husband that beat the crap out of her and the judges were all "honey, he's changed you don't need to go through with a divorce."

[proud2BlibKansan]

52. That's right. It wasn't illegal to beat your wife until the 80s I think.

I can still remember how horrified those neighbor kids were. We hated them. They were mean to us. But after that night, my siblings and I understood they didn't have a very happy home life. My dad also told us not to play at their house anymore, but to always have them come to our house. They were less likely to try to bully us on our turf.

[tammywammy]

54. My mom was strong

She had two children (my brothers) that were 3 and 1 (I think) at the time she divorced. She told me that she knew she had to get out of there, because one day he would kill her. She's the reason I donate out of every paycheck to the local women's shelter.

[Liberal_in_LA]

87. funny how most businesses don't want anything above a $20.

[tsuki]

57. My parents bought a home in 1964 for $12,500. and a payment with

escrow of SEVENTY-NINE DOLLARS, as my mom who handled the finances always said. She almost had a heart attack at the cost plus UTILITIES.

Dad was not to be derailed on this one. LOL

[joeglow3]

88. My wife's grandmother had a similar story when we bought our house

Except she had no idea how they would pay $18 a month. Made for a good laugh.

[NNN0LHI]

46. Here was one of the most popular TV shows from that era

&feature=player_detailpage

[Johnny Rico]

56. It's better than Fear Factor....

[high density]

66. Needs more reverb.

[FarCenter]

64. In 1955, the average income of men was $3400, and of women was $1100.

So the house at $10,990 was about 3 times average income, and bankers usually only considered the man's income at the time, since the woman was expected to have children and leave her job.

If you saved up a down payment of about 30%, you might get a mortgage. The rule of thumb was that your mortgage could be up to twice your annual income.

See "INCOME OF PERSONS IN THE UNITED STATES: 1955" at http://www2.census.gov/prod2/popscan/p60-023.pdf

According to this inflation calculator, $10,990 in 1995 is equal to $92,241.78 in 2011. Housing prices are clearly inflated more than other things. Food, clothing, transportion, etc. take a smaller percentage of an average family's budget than they did then. This, along with easy mortgage credit caused single family home prices to skyrocket. People were getting mortgages up to 4 times family income with little down payment at the height of the madness.

http://www.coinnews.net/tools/cpi-inflation-calculator/

[karynnj]

65. i'm impressed with the central air - My parents bought a house in 1957 and one in 1962 - neither had

air conditioning.

It is true that salaries have increased too - but you point out that the mortgage was about a week's net pay. That would be equivalent to paying about a forth of your take home now. Even now, 25% is supposed to be the maximum that lenders want you to spend.

There are actually other things that have changed far more. Someone mentioned how much it cost to go to the Pratt Institute in the 1920s, $80, and found that a graduate with an average salary made that in about a month. My husband and I then found each of us had salaries where one month was more than a semester's tuition. (We both went to good public universities). I KNOW that my three kids will not make as much as a semester's tuition in one month.

[joshcryer]

67. That's $88,000 inflation adjusted. You can buy a new house right now for $50k in certain areas.

A new 3-4 bedroom house, with a garage, two baths (two and a half in some cases) central air conditioner, and high efficiency standards.

[FreeJoe]

79. The median home listing price in Detroit is under $10,000 today.

[joshcryer]

89. Those houses aren't worth it, they're old, run down, out of date.

A new house built in the last 5 years is going to meet modern efficiency standards. Central heat and air, low flow toilets, energy star appliances, stuff like that.

It seems like they're a great deal but to bring them up to modern standards requires an effective rebuild. All the internals have to be ripped out, new wiring, new walling, insulation, new flooring.

[mick063]

69. In 1978

In 1977, at the age of 19, I earned 13.75 per hour as a warehouseman.

At that age, I ordered from the GM factory, a 1978 "t-top", midnight blue Camaro with virtually every option checked off to include "real" magnesium wheels. I paid roughly 11 grand for it.

A similarly equipped car today would cost roughly 60 grand.

I lived in a nice apartment with new furniture and a "top of the line" stereo system. I had 600 LP albums of music stacked against the wall. I went out every weekend and spent money on the town. I always had a bag of good weed (That went away when I joined the Navy).



I want the current generation of young adults to be able to afford a similar lifestyle. (They don't necessarily have to buy the weed

[RebelOne]

70. In the early 1950s, my mother and stepfather bought a house for $7,000

in the Miami area. It was 2 bedrooms and 2 baths on an acre of land. That house is now selling for over $100,000.

[Vinca]

74. Last night I was reading a book by Frank Lloyd Wright that showed the price of some of his homes

when built. $9,000 . . . $15,000 . . . I think the highest was $25,000. Imagine what they must be worth now if they're still standing. I was surprised that by today's standards the designs were horrid with minimal kitchens and often only had 1 bath. Still wish I had one, though.

[Synicus Maximus]

90. The adverage income in 1955 was $4137. today actually 2010 the average income was $46,362.

the current average price is about 150,000 to 200,000. So the current prices are slightly higher when compared to income. A car was close to the same percentage of income then as now.