@AmpBenzScientist I mean more so if you count that, but hardly needs to be considered. The cost to get the same functionality in the 50s would be astronomical even with 50s tech... more so if you magically had a microchip.

If you built a modern thermostat in the 50's your themostate would literally need its own home.

@freemo Oh I didn't think about it like that. If it was a climate control system they could have used analog computational components that would work well enough. A 24 hour clock could drive a replaceable disk that would activate different relays according to the time.

IE Newtonian Heating and Cooling could be used when implemented with approximate value disks. For more heat the value of the relays could increase via a potentiometer. For less heat the voltage to the heating coils could be reduced proportional to the time of day.

If it's difficult to visualize, just think about a music box. It was the 50s so why not have a bunch of rotating disks in the wall just to get the desired temperature range for a residence?

@admitsWrongIfProven The point is if you buy a home at 1950s standards it would be a "fixer upper" by todays standard.. Most could afford a home if they bought a 1950s style home in a 1950s style neighboorhood.

@freemo And you are saying such is available?

We have problems with empty houses, just everything too expensive. I must say, if everything is brought up to a standard most cannot afford, that is malicious.

@Clementulus its not about "buying more stuff along with our houses".. it is about function/utility and wealth. Our houses are built with more wealth (utility to a function) than ever before. The technology, and the function it brings, in our insulation, themostats, AC, appliances, wood treatments, security systems, glass on our windows, etc is worth a huge amount.

The fact is a modern home provides things a 50s home would not even be possible.

@freemo but if most working class people cant afford a 0.25 acre plot to plop a house on and all the available supply is in use, rental or otherwise, it's not hard to see why most young people will laugh in your face when you tell them how much wealth is in a modern home, because they are literally sleeping in their car.

@Clementulus If you choose to live in an area with the sort of population and advancement from 70+ years ago you'd be in a highly undeveloped area. That would cost you 1,000$ on the low end in the USA. The land can be very affordable, again, if your willing to live like they did 70+ years ago.

@Clementulus By the way that 4K proce I stated was the **average** for the cheapest state, not the cheapest in that state.

@freemo but im not comparing to 70+ years ago, im comparing to less than 20 years ago where houses that were brand new then have more than doubled in price since then with very little done in terms of renovation. My point is that its not the materials in the dwelling that have driven increased cost of housing, which was your original post, but rather an increased demand for limited supply of land.

@Clementulus at only $1000 for a quarter acre in the cheapest state the point is moot. Minimal living is cheap and accessible.

The fact that people are building and selling more expensive homes than before only speaks to how well off many of us are to afford more.

@freemo The point is not really moot. Sure anyone could move into the wilderness and try to live a self sufficient lifestyle for almost no cost (who even has the skills to do that nowadays anyway?) Or move somewhere with no jobs or opportunities and try to scrape by on welfare or whatever meager opportunities are there. But thats not what people want, they want to be in or near cities where they can pursue a profession and enjoy at least the basic amenities and the fact is that it was much easier for working-class people to do just that as far back as the 50s, even before.

@Clementulus We arent talking a self-sufficient lifestype. Or deep forrest living. The price for land I gave wa the average, not the cheapest deep woods price.