Hacker News Reader

Comment by sbov | Hacker News Reader

Your link's lowest datapoint has the average/median square feet per person at 500/550 square feet, back around 1973. I'm at 392 square feet per person. I'm not sure I'm on a hedonistic treadmill, but if it is I'm in a time warp.

Beyond that, the stats in that article are just plain bad because it ignores the fact that not everyone lives in a new house, but it still compares the average household size to ONLY new homes built in that year.

View on HN

Sorry, I was on mobile and found the first link. But I think the stats aren't as bad as you think. For any given year, you will have some inventory disappear completely. There is also new inventory being built. So, the average house size of all houses is also increasing. Not as much as the average new house size, but definitely increasing. Most people don't live in old houses from the 60s.

I would actually ignore the average household size. We already know that that that decreasing over time.

Note that I didn't intend my comment to be a personal attack on you. I'm merely trying to point out this trend. Apologies if I came off that way. But your case also highlights another fact that was rare back in the day -- using your house as an office is increasingly becoming viable or necessary for those doing remote work.

Yeah, between smaller households and new houses being built being on average larger, the trend certainly is that we are getting more square feet for less people. I just think the article does a lot of things with the numbers that are questionable.

I didn't take it personally, but I also didn't quite know the best way to respond either. I probably didn't do the best job at it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com