<blockquote>
<p>Is it true that housing size, car age, and per capita car and home production were a lot better in the 50s?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>There is no indication in data that these things were better in 50s at least not in the US (which I assume you are interested in based on the sources &amp; statistics presented above). However, a big caveat when talking about 50s is that we dont have much data about 50s - statistics was not collected back then on so many things as they are presently. Most datasets on things you ask about will date furthest to the 60s-70s. Nonetheless, to the extent we can extrapolate trends to the past there is no indication that the things you mentioned were better in the past.</p>
<p><strong>Housing Size</strong></p>
<p>According to <a href="https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/new-us-homes-today-are-1000-square-feet-larger-than-in-1973-and-living-space-per-person-has-nearly-doubled/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">American Enterprising Institute</a> (AEA) the housing size today is almost 1000 sq. ft. per person larger than it used to be in 70's. If we extrapolate the trends to the past it is reasonable to conclude that <em>per person</em> people in 50s should have less sq. ft. than today. This is partially driven by the fact that average household size shrunk (i.e. there is less people living in the same house), but at the same time declining number of people living in a household do not seem to be able to fully account for all this increase.</p>
<p>Furthermore, as the next picture shows the real housing prices did not really increased by significantly since 70s. Hence this means that today for virtually the same price people can enjoy more sq. ft. per person of housing.</p>
<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/PDCgK.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/PDCgK.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/kCFAA.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/kCFAA.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
<p><strong>Car Age</strong></p>
<p>You already show that average car age increased since the 70s in your question so there is no point in showing that again here. However, it is worth noting that also average price of new car increased since 70s (as shown below from the data provided by FRED) so in this case it could be argued that although cars have higher quality nowadays you are also paying for this higher quality in increased price. Further analysis would be required to say definitively if controlling for price and other factors the cars now last longer than they used to. I did not found any research on this maybe some other user can provide some.
<a href="https://i.sstatic.net/sKqsi.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/sKqsi.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
<p><strong>Per Capita Home Production</strong></p>
<p>Per capita home production is nowadays much higher than in 50s. This is actually rare case that there are relatively good data going back all the way to the 50s. According to the <a href="https://www.bea.gov/data/special-topics/household-production" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Bureau of Economic Analysis</a> which estimated the value of household production based on opportunity cost of doing housework using data for real wages the value of US home production.</p>
<p>The BEA only provides estimates for household production for entire US so in order to make meaningful comparison across time I calculated the per capita measure using the <a href="https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL?locations=US" rel="nofollow noreferrer">World Bank's population data</a> for US. However, the population data go only to the 60s so I report both per capita and total measure.</p>
<p>As the measures show the value of household production increased significantly since 50s/60s respectively.</p>
<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/kL5Bb.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/kL5Bb.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/dwFFi.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/dwFFi.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
<p><strong>US per Capita Car production</strong></p>
<p>When it comes to car production I obtained data for car production for US from the <a href="http://www.oica.net/category/production-statistics/2019-statistics/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Organisation Internationale des Constructeurs d'Automobiles</a>. The statistics for aggregate production start in 50s but population data only in 60s so again I provide both raw measure and per capita measure below.</p>
<p>However, note as an economist I have to say that car production - neither in total or per capita - can or should be used as an indicator of quality of life. For example, in 2019 <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_motor_vehicle_production#cite_note-2" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Slovakia</a> had one of the largest car productions in the world and  Slovakia (judged by gross output per capita) one of the poorest countries in the European Union and even taking Europe as a whole it would rank <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_in_Europe_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita" rel="nofollow noreferrer">22 by GDP per capita in 2019</a>.</p>
<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/viCjB.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/viCjB.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a>
<a href="https://i.sstatic.net/QX3DE.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/QX3DE.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-08-24T00:03:13.093Z
Those are based on money and  not physical output. Quality of everything has nosedived since the 50s and overhead costs and bureaucracy have increased.
D J Sims
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-08-24T00:07:16.287Z
Also you're ignoring existing vs new homes again.
D J Sims
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-08-24T00:07:42.620Z
@user30154 what are you talking about? For housing prices I provided evidence that space increased while real prices remained constant. For home production the BEA metadata says that the estimation was done based on **real** wages not nominal ones - so that represents the real value of home produced goods and services. For the car production I literary just used output. Furthermore, can you please be so kind and provide any statistical evidence for statement: "Quality of everything has nosedived since the 50s and overhead costs and bureaucracy have increased"?
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-08-24T00:14:03.377Z
@user30154 oh that table is actually in 1000 when I was writing the y-axis label I accidentally omitted it - I corrected the y label now
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-08-24T00:24:49.670Z
That's what I said. You're using money and not quantity. And wood and steel were used vs plastic crap.
D J Sims
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-08-24T00:29:36.117Z
@user33800 do you know what even real output is? Figure 1 is in sq ft per person. Figure 2 is price adjusted for inflation. Figure 3 is price index. Figure 4 and 5 is actual **real output** is estimated using real wages for opportunity cost calculation so its adjusted for inflation - and thats by definition what real output is. Finally figure 6 and 7 is measured in  **total output**
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-08-24T00:55:34.017Z
@user33800 construction spending? what are you even talking about?
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-08-24T07:17:46.050Z
@1muflon1 Why engage?
Giskard
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-08-24T09:08:26.583Z
@Giskard before the edit 1 and 2 the question looked genuine
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-08-24T09:36:33.087Z
@1muflon1 Of course it is up to you, but I find questions starting with "*The previous answers were off base so let's try again.*" are rarely in good faith.
Giskard
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-08-24T09:44:27.657Z
@Giskard I should have seen that as a red flag but I thought that it’s just someone who wants to know more about changing quality of life and the previous question was about incomes... I wanted to give a benefit of a doubt which in retrospect was a mistake - but at least I will try to learn from it
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-08-24T00:00:42.900Z
2020-08-24T00:16:21.940Z
2020-08-24T00:16:21.940Z
1muflon1
<p>The previous answers were off base so let's try again.</p>
<p>Housing starts:</p>
<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/tSTfp.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/tSTfp.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/rZAgv.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/rZAgv.jpg" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/UpG9D.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/UpG9D.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
<p>Per capita, housing starts and vehicle sales peaked in the 70s at best.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.moyak.com/papers/house-sizes.html#:%7E:text=Some%20large%20homes%20did%20exist,good-sized%20suburban%20home%20today" rel="nofollow noreferrer">http://www.moyak.com/papers/house-sizes.html#:~:text=Some%20large%20homes%20did%20exist,good-sized%20suburban%20home%20today</a>.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Lot sizes began to grow after the turn of the century. Early 20th century bungalows were one-storey or storey and a half dwellings of between 600 and 800 square feet. In most new houses of the early twentieth century, square footage was drastically reduced to compensate for the increased expenses of plumbing, heating, and other new technological improvements. Housing studies also attribute the reduced square footage to a decline in domestic production of goods. There was no longer any reason to have storage places for things such as home-canned fruit and vegetables, dowry linens, and supplies for making the family's clothes and bedding. People were no longer producers, but consumers.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>People confuse existing vs new homes. Big 19th century homes were around by the 50s and new homes were crap by then.</p>
<p>Is it true that housing size, car age, and per capita car and home production were a lot better in the 50s? Besides the obvious social benefits of jobs being available, no layoffs, police being far less aggressive etc.</p>
<p>And in terms of quality, everything was wood and steel vs plastic now. If a 50s car collided with today the  the modern would be obliterated. Vinyl siding is a wood imitation also.</p>
<p>Although electronics has improved, electronics is meaningless without reference to the media you use it with. It is arguable that the best movies are classics and the things you watch on tv now are mediocre. In any case that's a minor factor.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-08-23T22:31:11.507Z
How are nominal housing prices and car sales numbers related to their quality and your question at all? I would recommend rewriting the question in more coherent way and getting rid of tangential statistics or if you think the statistics is important to the Q at least explain why.
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-08-23T23:25:21.873Z
Your third chart suggests motor vehicles are now on average older, i.e they last longer before ceasing to be used.  This may be a good thing, if they are now more reliable for a longer period of time.  For a given total fleet size, that would then lead to fewer sales of  new vehicles (your second chart)
Henry
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-08-23T23:59:05.793Z
I greatly doubt modern cars are more durable since plastic cracks and dents more easily than steel.
D J Sims
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-08-27T09:46:03.370Z
*"If a 50s car collided with today the the modern would be obliterated."* - that can be interpreted in two ways. The modern car would certainly sustain damage that was more expensive to repair (for example, plastic bumpers will shatter, whereas you can hammer steel ones back into shape), but in a serious collision the (far cheaper) 50s car would be more likely to sustain not only total economic loss, but also to kill the occupants.
Steve
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-08-27T10:57:32.480Z
Obviously the steel car would destroy plastic...
D J Sims
<macroeconomics>
Cars and houses per capita vs 1950s
D J Sims
# Cars and houses per capita vs 1950s

(Asked by: username_0 on 2020-08-23)

The previous answers were off base so let's try again.

Housing starts:

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/tSTfp.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/tSTfp.png)

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/rZAgv.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/rZAgv.jpg)

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/UpG9D.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/UpG9D.png)

Per capita, housing starts and vehicle sales peaked in the 70s at best.

[http://www.moyak.com/papers/house-sizes.html#:~:text=Some%20large%20homes%20did%20exist,good-sized%20suburban%20home%20today](http://www.moyak.com/papers/house-sizes.html#:%7E:text=Some%20large%20homes%20did%20exist,good-sized%20suburban%20home%20today).

> Lot sizes began to grow after the turn of the century. Early 20th century bungalows were one-storey or storey and a half dwellings of between 600 and 800 square feet. In most new houses of the early twentieth century, square footage was drastically reduced to compensate for the increased expenses of plumbing, heating, and other new technological improvements. Housing studies also attribute the reduced square footage to a decline in domestic production of goods. There was no longer any reason to have storage places for things such as home-canned fruit and vegetables, dowry linens, and supplies for making the family's clothes and bedding. People were no longer producers, but consumers.

People confuse existing vs new homes. Big 19th century homes were around by the 50s and new homes were crap by then.

Is it true that housing size, car age, and per capita car and home production were a lot better in the 50s? Besides the obvious social benefits of jobs being available, no layoffs, police being far less aggressive etc.

And in terms of quality, everything was wood and steel vs plastic now. If a 50s car collided with today the the modern would be obliterated. Vinyl siding is a wood imitation also.

Although electronics has improved, electronics is meaningless without reference to the media you use it with. It is arguable that the best movies are classics and the things you watch on tv now are mediocre. In any case that's a minor factor.

**Tags:** macroeconomics
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: How are nominal housing prices and car sales numbers related to their quality and your question at all? I would recommend rewriting the question in more coherent way and getting rid of tangential statistics or if you think the statistics is important to the Q at least explain why.  
> **username_2**: Your third chart suggests motor vehicles are now on average older, i.e they last longer before ceasing to be used.  This may be a good thing, if they are now more reliable for a longer period of time.  For a given total fleet size, that would then lead to fewer sales of  new vehicles (your second chart)  
> **username_0**: I greatly doubt modern cars are more durable since plastic cracks and dents more easily than steel.  
> **username_3**: *"If a 50s car collided with today the the modern would be obliterated."* - that can be interpreted in two ways. The modern car would certainly sustain damage that was more expensive to repair (for example, plastic bumpers will shatter, whereas you can hammer steel ones back into shape), but in a serious collision the (far cheaper) 50s car would be more likely to sustain not only total economic loss, but also to kill the occupants.  
> **username_0**: Obviously the steel car would destroy plastic...  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2020-08-24. Score: 4

> Is it true that housing size, car age, and per capita car and home production were a lot better in the 50s?

There is no indication in data that these things were better in 50s at least not in the US (which I assume you are interested in based on the sources & statistics presented above). However, a big caveat when talking about 50s is that we dont have much data about 50s - statistics was not collected back then on so many things as they are presently. Most datasets on things you ask about will date furthest to the 60s-70s. Nonetheless, to the extent we can extrapolate trends to the past there is no indication that the things you mentioned were better in the past.

**Housing Size**

According to [American Enterprising Institute](https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/new-us-homes-today-are-1000-square-feet-larger-than-in-1973-and-living-space-per-person-has-nearly-doubled/) (AEA) the housing size today is almost 1000 sq. ft. per person larger than it used to be in 70's. If we extrapolate the trends to the past it is reasonable to conclude that *per person* people in 50s should have less sq. ft. than today. This is partially driven by the fact that average household size shrunk (i.e. there is less people living in the same house), but at the same time declining number of people living in a household do not seem to be able to fully account for all this increase.

Furthermore, as the next picture shows the real housing prices did not really increased by significantly since 70s. Hence this means that today for virtually the same price people can enjoy more sq. ft. per person of housing.

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/PDCgK.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/PDCgK.png)

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/kCFAA.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/kCFAA.png)

**Car Age**

You already show that average car age increased since the 70s in your question so there is no point in showing that again here. However, it is worth noting that also average price of new car increased since 70s (as shown below from the data provided by FRED) so in this case it could be argued that although cars have higher quality nowadays you are also paying for this higher quality in increased price. Further analysis would be required to say definitively if controlling for price and other factors the cars now last longer than they used to. I did not found any research on this maybe some other user can provide some.
[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/sKqsi.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/sKqsi.png)

**Per Capita Home Production**

Per capita home production is nowadays much higher than in 50s. This is actually rare case that there are relatively good data going back all the way to the 50s. According to the [Bureau of Economic Analysis](https://www.bea.gov/data/special-topics/household-production) which estimated the value of household production based on opportunity cost of doing housework using data for real wages the value of US home production.

The BEA only provides estimates for household production for entire US so in order to make meaningful comparison across time I calculated the per capita measure using the [World Bank's population data](https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL?locations=US) for US. However, the population data go only to the 60s so I report both per capita and total measure.

As the measures show the value of household production increased significantly since 50s/60s respectively.

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/kL5Bb.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/kL5Bb.png)

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/dwFFi.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/dwFFi.png)

**US per Capita Car production**

When it comes to car production I obtained data for car production for US from the [Organisation Internationale des Constructeurs d'Automobiles](http://www.oica.net/category/production-statistics/2019-statistics/). The statistics for aggregate production start in 50s but population data only in 60s so again I provide both raw measure and per capita measure below.

However, note as an economist I have to say that car production - neither in total or per capita - can or should be used as an indicator of quality of life. For example, in 2019 [Slovakia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_motor_vehicle_production#cite_note-2) had one of the largest car productions in the world and Slovakia (judged by gross output per capita) one of the poorest countries in the European Union and even taking Europe as a whole it would rank [22 by GDP per capita in 2019](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_in_Europe_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita).

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/viCjB.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/viCjB.png)
[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/QX3DE.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/QX3DE.png)

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Those are based on money and  not physical output. Quality of everything has nosedived since the 50s and overhead costs and bureaucracy have increased.  
> **username_0**: Also you're ignoring existing vs new homes again.  
> **username_1**: @user30154 what are you talking about? For housing prices I provided evidence that space increased while real prices remained constant. For home production the BEA metadata says that the estimation was done based on **real** wages not nominal ones - so that represents the real value of home produced goods and services. For the car production I literary just used output. Furthermore, can you please be so kind and provide any statistical evidence for statement: "Quality of everything has nosedived since the 50s and overhead costs and bureaucracy have increased"?  
> **username_1**: @user30154 oh that table is actually in 1000 when I was writing the y-axis label I accidentally omitted it - I corrected the y label now  
> **username_0**: That's what I said. You're using money and not quantity. And wood and steel were used vs plastic crap.  
> **username_1**: @user33800 do you know what even real output is? Figure 1 is in sq ft per person. Figure 2 is price adjusted for inflation. Figure 3 is price index. Figure 4 and 5 is actual **real output** is estimated using real wages for opportunity cost calculation so its adjusted for inflation - and thats by definition what real output is. Finally figure 6 and 7 is measured in  **total output**  
> **username_1**: @user33800 construction spending? what are you even talking about?  
> **username_4**: @1muflon1 Why engage?  
> **username_1**: @Giskard before the edit 1 and 2 the question looked genuine  
> **username_4**: @1muflon1 Of course it is up to you, but I find questions starting with "*The previous answers were off base so let's try again.*" are rarely in good faith.  
> **username_1**: @Giskard I should have seen that as a red flag but I thought that it’s just someone who wants to know more about changing quality of life and the previous question was about incomes... I wanted to give a benefit of a doubt which in retrospect was a mistake - but at least I will try to learn from it  

---

