🇳🇱
Not sure if I should cry or laugh.
In all seriousness though the idea that the past was better financially is objectively false. If you are willing to live by older safety standards and quality then you can live as affordably as you could in the past. Most of us dont want to live like we did in the 1920s though.
@Gbudd The problem with that reasoning is that a house 20 or 40 years ago is not comparable to a house today. To put it into perspective just a modern day next thermostat 40 years ago would have cost you more than the entire cost of a modern home.
If you were willing to accept a 100 year old or 40 year old home in terms of safety standards, lack of tech, lead paint, and all of the other aspects you can get a dirt cheap home.
The truth of the matter is simply that you cant compare an education or a home from the past to one in modern day, they are not the equivalent
Even the houses we have that were built a long time ago, most have been mostly or completely renovated in more recent history. My house is 100 ish years old but was renovated 10 years ago completely.
In fact any house that is sufficiently old that is in the exact state it was in 100 years agowould not be legal to live in in many cases with stuff like asbestos and dangerous wiring, etc.
@freemo @Gbudd Dude, I literally live in one of those houses. Asbestos. Cloth-wrapped wires. Even the air system is like 25 years old. No insulation; just drywall on cinderblocks. The roof is newer, but that's about it.
Few places in America require older buildings to be up to code. Most places only require that for new construction.
Thats very surprising. Wouldnt have expected asbestos in a home to be legal these days... admitidly I dont know the specific laws.
But regardless if you are ok with a home that is literally just sitting there unchanged for 100 years, then go fo rit. You can certainly get it a lot cheaper than a modernized home thats for sure (And thus the point).
@freemo @Gbudd Not really. I paid almost $200K for it in 2020, so it's probably worth at least 50% more than that now.
That's not much cheaper than a comparable house, which is *exactly why* these don't get upgraded: The upgrades cost way more than the value they add to the house. It's a losing proposition.
Its hard for me to think you have a house that has sit there rotting away for 100 years with no modern work to clean it up and it could be worth that much.
I suspect either you've done work on it in the last 100 years, or it would be afraction the value. I mean how did your house sit there for 100 years and even remain in livable condition. Windows break, wood rots, and ultimately when you replace it its with modern tech usually.
@freemo @Gbudd It was built in the 1950s, so not quite 100 years. The construction is cinder block and asbestos-filled drywall. Both last quite a long time. Most of the electric fixtures have been replaced (lights, etc.), and there are some rooms that were clearly extensions built later, but the main windows are clearly from the original house (they're single-pane and have the old-school handle-latches, and a couple just won't open anymore). The bathroom has clearly been remodeled at some point more recently, but even then, it has no exhaust fan and the main plumbing is still the original cast iron built into the foundation.
The entire neighborhood is in a similar condition. As I understand it, this is just how it is in most of the country right now, but Florida is a little worse than average.
Fair, I have seen a few historic houses like that but in my expiernce that is rare. Most homes, even the old ones, are at least partly modernized.
The old style wiring, while more dangerous, is actually something I always wanted just for the asthetic of it, but in practice it doesnt make sense.
@freemo Yep, here, check it out, I just took this picture in my back porch storage room where the wall is bare:
And this is *common* around here.
@LouisIngenthron I have only ever seen this older style wiring in pictures. Knob and tube wiring is really my favorite old-school asthetic. At least when its done right. It can also be crazy ugly though.
Well THAT didn't go as hoped
@freemo @LouisIngenthron @Gbudd First I think you're possibly misunderstanding the age distribution of US housing. Were there materials problems that we now know better about? Absolutely. Were there things that were better? If you don't think so, go talk to someone about flooring and timber in hundred year old houses vs modern stick built homes.
As for asbestos, it's in a lot of houses, IIRC never disturb 9x9 tiles (and be cautious with others if there's doubt). Removal can be expensive, but often encapsulation is used instead, aka "just floor over it."
No we arent talking about flooring and timber, yea you can get flooring and timber today at a primeum just as you could get it back then, except back then you had to pay the premium as you had less alternatives.
No its more about the areas where tech matters, insulation, windows, fire safety, computer controlled tech, safety in wiring, etc etc.
@freemo I'd absolutely take some building standards regressions in combination with a reversion to a 90% top tax rate. Heck, let's be generous and make it graduated so the 90% is only on income beyond $10 million (but capital gains are still income, if you want it to grow with no taxes invest it in the company).
@freemo The problem is that “better” has so many dimensions as to make it mean whatever someone wants.
On one hand, it’s a lot more expensive to get a house or college degree than it was 20 or 40 years ago, on the other hand we’ve got access to information and entertainment that would be unimaginable 40 years ago. Not to mention the safety improvements you mention.