[perpetuum]

This makes no sense.

"Increase in quality of living" doesn't make people move en-masse to suburban tract housing and strip malls. Advertising and insurance regulation do, however. And oil companies and car companies obviously wanted everyone to waste as much oil and car consumption as they could.

The US let the car companies and oil companies and insurance companies destroy its cities. They are empty husks of their former selves, and have been replaced by dysfunctional, socially retarded, and resource vacuuming LOW QUALITY suburbs.

Uh huh, yes it does. It is really that simple, you have money yet it is way too expensive to afford housing withing city line, so you move to suburbs where prices are moderate. What oil companies wanted to do is irrelevant, what is relevant is that consumers wanted to do it. And consumer did.

If you want to blame somebody, target consumer with it, no oil companies who simply provided supply of cheap energy to the people who were initiators in growing suburbs.

What I do not understand in your premise is what you want to do about that, have government to intervene and start building apartment houses and make suburb population inhabit it? Or just let current suburb dwellers rise demand for cheaper housing due to current energy problems in order to spark increase in supply by private sector? If later I might agree with you.

[QatzelOk]

If you want to blame somebody, target consumer with it, no oil companies who simply provided supply of cheap energy to the people who were initiators in growing suburbs.

Oil companies and car companies (and local dealerships) have been involved in politics for over a hundred years. To not acknowledge their part in "the market deciding" in America seems to be a bit tragically naive.

But we're straying off track. My original point is that home ownership is stupid because it leads to cheap, disposable construction which ends up costing a lot more for each generation.

[Vera Politica]

The US let the car companies and oil companies and insurance companies destroy its cities. They are empty husks of their former selves, and have been replaced by dysfunctional, socially retarded, and resource vacuuming LOW QUALITY suburbs.

Suburbia was allowed with massive investments in public infrastructure in terms of highways, public roads, etc. The government is complicit in this, I doubt the oil companies had anythign to do with it, their power boomed after suburban flight.

Also, as we can all see, inner-city gentrification is at a rapid pace. The urban periphery is now hostile grounds - Suburbia however hasn't been touched in North America (although suburbia is now the enclave of the poor in Europe).

[Paradigm]

But we're straying off track. My original point is that home ownership is stupid because it leads to cheap, disposable construction which ends up costing a lot more for each generation.

That may be the norm, but it is not an inherent feature thereof. If we establish tax policies which discourage sprawl, there would likely be more incentive to build more durable homes.

[perpetuum]

Oil companies and car companies (and local dealerships) have been involved in politics for over a hundred years. To not acknowledge their part in "the market deciding" in America seems to be a bit tragically naive.

But we're straying off track. My original point is that home ownership is stupid because it leads to cheap, disposable construction which ends up costing a lot more for each generation.

They were a tool. Consumers still ran a thing. Oh and I agree, owning a home is extremely retarded.

[Larendect]

People only keep a house for 5 - 20 years now. There's no point in putting tens of thousands of dollars into a house that will sell for base price a decade later.

People are more than welcome to pay far more for a better house - there's just no logical reason to do so. By the time your house is paid for, your property taxes are higher than your mortgage was.

[ingliz]

My house in the UK was a very good investment - 500GBP in the late 60's turned into 120,000GBP come the millenium.

What would have, notionally, taken 11 months gross earnings to buy in 1969; in 2001 would have taken 6yrs 3 months.

[QatzelOk]

Ingliz, perhaps your real estate investment paid off for you.

But turning the places where humans live into speculative stocks -- that can turn really nasty when the stock market collapses, can't it.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

Did you really get a house for £500 in the late sixties, ingliz? Govt. statistics show the average first time buyers' price at £4,097 in 1969, rising to £75,840 in 2000 - see http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents ... 140957.xls . Even in the cheapest region - Yorkshire and Humberside - the average was £2,970. Was there a missing figure from your price?

[ingliz]

The textile firm, which my wife worked for at the time, was selling off it's model village of 'worker's cottages' to it's employees at a knockdown price. A two up, two down terrace with yard, a through terrace, was a lot cheaper than the average house anyway but especially in a rural, one industry village with textiles going to the wall. In the 90's they built a motorway(M1/M62 to the M6 link) and junction, just far enough away so you couldn't hear or see it, and the village became part of the Leeds commuter belt - The price of housing more than doubled overnight. A combination of luck, a bucolic idyll with good transport links on the edge of the dales, and a fashion for small weekend country retreats would have brought me such a return on my £500 first house; Unfortunately I sold it in the late 80's in order to emigrate so my gains were a lot more modest.

ps. In '69 they were tied cottages with no inside toilet and you washed in a tin bath in front of the fire, the rent was 13 shillings a week.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

Ah - yes, that does sound fairly basic (didn't realise that houses with no indoor toilet were still around quite that late ...)

[ingliz]

I 'googled' the figures - I too was a bit surprised at the numbers when you gave official averages for the time, I was going by what friends had told us, as I haven't lived in the UK for over 20yrs. The numbers are roughly correct: The 2003 price spread being £107,083 to £119,500 in what was my street. The higher figure is probably for a corner terrace, a corner terrace is a bit bigger and has a bigger yard. But you must remember that 'must have' fashion accessories have never come at a sensible price - And a fool and his money are soon parted.

ps. As an example one house sold for £51,500 in late 2002 and the same house sold for £115,000 in early 2004

[Prosthetic Conscience]

It makes some sense - the price increase no doubt includes some kind of extension to include an indoor toilet and bath, and a sudden inclusion in the Leeds commuter belt (in an area still looking pleasant) could indeed have doubled prices. And the 1969 price sounds like the company was keen to get them of their hands to employees (hey, sometimes employers can be nice).