That’s a huge gain in 20 years. Where is the commensurate equivalent growth in housing, education, healthcare, cheap food, etc…
There is a huge disconnect between GDP increase and the economic pressure the majority of Americans feel.
Here you say we can't eat/shelter better with GDP increases because they aren't distributed; there you said that [spending on] ability to eat/shelter was what they measured.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/quality-of-...
Mississippi: The average home size 2,065 square feet
United Kingdom: The average home size is 818 square feet
No, you cannot "eat GDP", but its a useful proxy as it correlates very highly to a lot of things we do care about
There is a huge difference between Mississippi and the UK: 78.6 years for males and 82.6 years for females in the UK in 2020 to 2022. 68.6 years for males and 75.2 years for females in Mississippi in 2020 and 67.7 years for makes and 74.3 years for females in Mississippi in 2021. Might go up a bit if you have 2022 numbers, but the difference is huge.
Because if there's no discrepancy, or a smaller one, it seems to suggest that maybe GDP and square-footage-of-your-house is actually not all that important.
Could you clarify further if you meant one of these, or if you meant something else that I was not able to pick up on?
Do we really need a "source" for everything? Would it be meaningful if you saw some survey asking: Would you prefer your primary residence to be smaller, larger or the same size?
I guess you can say all things being equal larger homes are more expensive so there must be some kind of preference for larger homes that indicates value
I would look at cost + time. For instance, if it costs me an extra $2k per year for a car but it saves me 30 minutes round trip, and my time is worth more than $20 an hour (assume work 200 days per year), then car is better. Add the convenience of not having to manage bus schedules and, you know, owning a car, its a no-brainer. I think there's some weird cultish behavior around "public transit" as though it is a good by itself is disconnected to how most people think about this.
So in this case not being able to afford a car or have anywhere to park it is not the win you think it is.
In terms of education, not sure its quantifiable but if you look at money, Mississippi spends considerably more:
In England, secondary school spending per pupil in 2024-25 is projected to be about £7,400 ($9.4k), while primary school spending per pupil is about £6,700 ($8.5k)
In Mississippi its around $12k
Do you have any other data or are you just going entirely off of vibes?
https://ifs.org.uk/publications/annual-report-education-spen...
https://www.datapandas.org/ranking/per-pupil-spending-by-sta...
>Add the convenience of not having to manage bus schedules and, you know, owning a car, its a no-brainer.
I assume you live in a place where cars are the default, or the only, mode of transportation? It's not like this everywhere.
Just two examples:
- food shopping is a lot more expensive if you have to buy local and you're restricted to how much you can carry
- it's kind of rude taking a sick or injured child to the doctor on public transportation
This is obvious if you look at behavior. When people get more money, they buy a car or often multiple cars. When they have a family, people tend to move to suburbs where cars are the primary mode of transportation. Even in cities with good public transportation, like New York, wealthy people still often own cars and use them along with private car service.
People might answer some survey stating they like public transportation but their behavior suggests otherwise. And these surveys are frame against an impossible ideal that does not exist. Look at behavior.
Let me take a guess, you are an American, living in a city without good public transit.
We had to sleep on different floors. Master bedroom was barely larger than the queen bed, and no way 2 people could sleep in there because it would get blazing hot in minutes.
Garage was similarly minuscule. GF had a tiny suv and still couldn't open both doors.
I figure 1000 square feet per adult is just about right.
Maybe the space wasn't laid out well. I would imagine, with only 700 sq ft per floor, a good portion of that is taken up by the stairs. My condo is a flat in a 100-year-old building, built before the "open concept" plans came into vogue. It means out rooms are separated and lets my wife and I do different things in different parts of the house.
People used to raise families in these old buildings with 1000 square feet. Their third-spaces weren't taken over by profit-seeking companies and their interests took them outside the home. 2000 square feet for 2 people seems utterly ridiculous!
What are you guys even doing? Or maybe the 1400sqft included the garage?
If they hadn't done the math I'd have suspected a typo.
I'm in a place not all that much larger (1800 sqft) and it feels pretty luxuriously large for just me and my partner. Big open kitchen, two living rooms, 2.5 bathrooms, three bedrooms (one used as an office for myself) and a dedicated office for my wife.
Mississipi: 24.5/km2
UK: 279/km2
Maybe, only maybe, that has an effect on house sizes?
New Jersey median home square footage: 1,740
Doesn't look like it?
People move east to west across the pond, because they want the life offered by the US economy.
Where are you getting your confidence that that is so?
If you believe there's nearly as many people trying to get out than there is trying to get in, you will be surprised.
The difference (per capita) is a factor of at least 10x