DRTDEVL
Mothfukle
Nope. When I was starting out, a home phone cost me $35/month. My current home phone is $9.99/month and my cell phone is $14/month... so I am paying $10.01 less in phone expenses and have two lines. My phone? $174, cash. It has 6 gb ram and 128gb internal storage, expandable to 1TB. My first cell phone was over $500 and barely made calls and texts successfully. My first internet was 28k dial up at $30/month. I currently pay 3x the amount for 2,100x the speed (600mb). It is all incredibly cheaper without even factoring for inflation.Biggest issue is cost of existing increases. Phone, phone bill, computer, internet, ect.
You hit the nail on the head with your initial question. The average home size in 1970 was 1500 sq ft. By 2014, the average had ballooned to 2,657 sq ft... therefore you would effectively have to multiply the new home price by 0.5645 in order to have an equivalent price comparison, so that $408,100 becomes just over $230,000 for the same amount of home rather than the inflation-adjusted $177,788, only out-pacing inflation by about 22% or so, not 150%.I suppose the price for square foot then, adjusted for inflation now, qualified by the location?
Why Millennials Can’t Afford Homes: Housing Prices vs. Inflation
Housing prices have soared above the inflation rate – but what does this mean for consumers pursuing the American Dream?anytimeestimate.com
"We found that home prices have rapidly increased over the last five decades, eclipsing the inflation rate by 150% since 1970. In fact, if home prices grew at the same rate as inflation since 1970, the median home price today would be just $177,788 – rather than $408,100."
The report also concludes millennials face a 31% higher home price to income ratio than a boomer in their 30s did.
I'm no finance expert, but I'm eager to read any literature that demonstrates I'm incorrect. I'm genuinely interested in this issue.
Prices aren't increasing faster than inflation, people's expectations are.