New data shows Americans more miserable than we've been in half a century

https://thewhyaxis.substack.com/p/new-data-shows-americans-more-miserable

by steelstraw • 4 years ago

75 155 4 years ago

thewhyaxis.substack.com

gtsop• 4 years ago

Does anyone know why the sum doesn't add up to 100% in that chart?

From the article: “The balance is made up by the pretty-happies at around 57 percent, who I omitted from the chart because their numbers didn’t change from 2018 to 2021.”

HWR_14• 4 years ago

There is a third choice. "Pretty happy". It's then middle and left out because it's considered the "neutral" answer

ngngngng• 4 years ago

I wasn't able to read the whole article since I'm not subscribed, but the answer is in the text that was included to me.

It's because "pretty happy" is the 3rd answer to the question and that number has stayed the same.

_Microft• 4 years ago

The graph makes it rather look like as if the decline in happiness began half a decade ago. The pandemic certainly didn‘t help but I would guess it all started with the polarization during the Trump administration.

colejohnson66• 4 years ago

We've been more polarized recently, sure, but it didn't start with Trump. Obama was a polarizing person as well - many right-wingers said they'd move to Canada if Obama was elected. Trump was just a continuation of the already existing polarization. Heck, his whole campaign in rural areas was based on, essentially, "your voice has been ignored, and I can give you one"

drewcoo• 4 years ago

Yes, every American President has been polarizing. Even Ford.

But the graphs show the change starting around the Trump epoch.

gunfighthacksaw2• 4 years ago

Why was Obama so polarizing? From the other side of the pond he looked like a garden variety politician from whom you could expect… well, the expected.

I know that there is an accusation from the US left that all of the right’s obstruction and hostility was just barely concealed racism, but I assume that many in the GOP are not just frothing racists and do have some thought out issue with his actions.

How was Obama more polarizing than, say, Bill Clinton? I remember W being polarizing because he came off as a mouth breather, but Obama just seemed so bland.

AnimalMuppet2• 4 years ago

The polarization has been increasing at least since Reagan. For every president since Reagan/Bush Sr., the other side's contempt, hatred, and opposition has grown. This has been true on both sides.

isleyaardvark• 4 years ago

The graph pretty ridiculously changes the graph from the source to remove labeling of individual years. In the original source the graph is steady up to 2018. Even then it looks like the source lacks data for both 2019 and 2020.

All in all this is pretty low quality post.

syki2• 4 years ago

The real polarization occurred when Bush Sr. made a deal with Democrats to raise taxes and cut spending. That was the last time there was significant bipartisanship on domestic policy. When Clinton ran he went to the right because liberal Democrats had fared poorly in the previous 3 Presidential elections. As a result Republicans moved further right and pretty much since then Republican strategy has been to move to the right of whatever a Democratic President wants. For instance, Obamacare is essentially the same plan the Heritage Foundation concocted in 1994 in response to Clinton’s healthcare plan. Romney enacted that plan in Massachusetts.

After 3 decades of “libtards” and other epitaphs (of both parties) hurled at any member of an opposing political party the country is irrevocably entrenched polarization. Only a true crisis or truly hard times will alleviate this mess we are in.

pthread_t• 4 years ago

Only a true crisis or truly hard times will alleviate this mess we are in.

At this point, this true crisis will probably be a civil war. We already have politicians calling for a national divorce. [0]

[0] https://nypost.com/2021/12/29/rep-greene-suggests-a-national...

jimmyjazz142• 4 years ago

I feel like over last several years something started happening with our media that makes it appear more sensationalized (at least to me), add the multiplying factor of the internet and you have a recipe for unhappy people.

pm905• 4 years ago

Fox News happened

BurningFrog• 4 years ago

I think it's pretty clear that polarization comes mainly from modern social media.

It's happening all over the world, and I think Trump like figures are a symptom, not a cause of it.

vorpalhex2• 4 years ago

This is too short of a post (at least what I can read) to be meaningful, and we can't read the sources or evidence.

chillingeffect• 4 years ago

You're absolutely right! ... except for the first link in the article. If you briefly overlook that subtle, minute detail gently to one side for a hot minute though, your post is 100% correct.

That first link lets you download the data which is probably useless for me to re-post as it seems to have all kinds of user-specific keys in it. e.g. mine was: (https://prod-norcgssde-trendfiles.s3.amazonaws.com/trends/ha...)

vorpalhex2• 4 years ago

Oh, that's great. Do you mind recreating the entire chart from scratch for me? Be great if you can provide the same analysis and arguments for the claim.

tus666• 4 years ago

What happened half a century ago?

glial• 4 years ago

Watergate and high inflation?

AnimalMuppet2• 4 years ago

Vietnam, plus economic stagnation, plus inflation. Plus a lot of social tension caused by Vietnam, changing mores, the economy no longer growing like it did post-WWII...

vanusa• 4 years ago

What AnimalMuppet said plus the slow-but-steady evisceration of the middle class through overseas outsourcing, the gig economy, predatory lending, and rising education + housing costs (start at various points in time since then). And the religious devotion that we are all expected to have to work, work, work (despite it buying us neither housing nor security nor peace of mind).

Then throw in a failed imperial venture or two, with attendant suicide and drug addiction rates.

Pandemic didn't help either.

jwond• 4 years ago

https://wtfhappenedin1971.com

jayceedenton2• 4 years ago

Could someone please explain why this graph is not as problematic as it first appears: https://wtfhappenedin1971home.files.wordpress.com/2020/06/ei... ?

jb1991• 4 years ago

The start of this “study”.

rgbrenner• 4 years ago

The survey question started in 1972.

colpabar2• 4 years ago

As an American, I know I'm miserable because I have realized that I'm going to have to choose between a giant douche and a turd sandwich in all elections for the rest of my life, with any alternatives being disqualified for being a "socialist" or a "conspiracy theorist".

awinter-py• 4 years ago

I learned that I'd better get used to having to choose between a douche and a turd sandwich because it's usually the choice I'll have

goldenchrome2• 4 years ago

Think of presidents as figure heads. They represent an idea but they don’t have as much power as many think. There’s plenty of other influencing bodies of power in our society and most of them are hidden or at least not democratically elected. As a society we put a lot of emphasis on our politicians because it’s the one body of power that we feel we have any agency over. When you realize that our politicians are relatively insignificant, it’s easier to stop worrying about them.

Most people’s influence only extends to their local community anyway, and that’s a good thing to realize. Focus your energy there—on your family, your friends, and your neighbors—and you’re much more likely to feel satisfied.

colpabar2• 4 years ago

But isn't that worse? You basically just said that the people we vote for aren't actually the people in charge. How is that supposed to make anyone feel better?

And as for the whole "focus on your loved ones" notion, I reject it. I refuse to just give up and let the evil people who run the country do whatever they want with my tax dollars. I'm going to stay mad about it, because it's infuriating.

rootusrootus2• 4 years ago

they don’t have as much power as many think.

Maybe not regulatory power, but certainly they have the power to stand in front of 330 million citizens and proclaim the election a lie, refuse the kind of peaceful transition we've grown accustomed to, and really degrade the stability of our democracy in the process.

However, it is good that we've now learned how much our country relies on everyone acting in good faith. At some point we might be able to translate that into a stronger democracy.

pm905• 4 years ago

They do have the power. Just not the desire to use it in certain ways. This is where lobbyists come in.

thrwawy2832• 4 years ago

I think in normal times this is true.

Bare with me, this is all disorganized:

The last President, and the comments he made, have 3 times lost me over $100k in value from the investments I hold. It's like just waiting to recover from it, and that takes half a year to a year if I'm lucky. I don't sell, I just wait out the dip/depression. It has seriously delayed my ability to buy a house and start the next step of my life. We just saw the stock market dive and I attribute all of it as a delayed penalty to our terrible response to the pandemic and the inflation it caused. I work in emergency management and we waited for a year to begin things like contact tracing because we weren't directed to do it. We have to be explicitly directed by the President. It's purely frustrating that this person who shouldn't have as much direct influence on our lives so directly changed mine. My financial future is another 5 years out. Working so directly for a part of the government that should have helped, and wasn't invited to... well I feel so disgusted with myself. I feel like I let it happen.

My grandpa died this last year. He was vaccinated by the government and it's campaign to roll out Pfizer/Johnson/Moderna. We finally convinced him to go get it, and not 2 months later he died anyway (pneumonia from covid). The last 5 years I'd come home, and much of that I'd visit family. From my grandparents i'd hear nothing but conspiracies. How I'm a "deep state actor" trying to destroy America. My grandfather was 1 of the 1st graduates from Texas A&M and a master Electrician. He was a genius once. He died in a warped reality of conspiracy theories.

My father is the most wonderful father I have ever known. Compared to other dads I've been sure my whole life I have one of - if not - the best dad in the world. He's my moral compass. My mom taught me to be smart and my dad taught me to be kind. My dad isn't racist. Except we routinely have arguments where I'm trying to tell him how there are modern efforts to rewrite history, and make it palatable for people who come from bad times/lineage. No one in the South wants to reminisce. I argue with my dad that the President is an elected leader, and expected to lead by example while not undermining other parts of the same government. My father shoots back that people have to have "personal responsibility" and think for themselves in regards to things like mask mandates and not ingesting bleach. There was very real harm being done by a very public figure. I remember I kept asking my good dad: Do you blame him for 1 death? It was only after the election of Biden that my father began to see some of the harm from Trump. I tell my dad it's not the same, both parties are not the same. I'm employed in a humanitarian agency and even our budget is being attacked by 1 party who would rather put the individual states at risk. They'll cut our budget to make it impossible to operate, then point to us and say "look, it doesn't work!". My dad says both parties are monsters, and the Democrats were the ones to hold slaves. Republicans ended it. It's still a debate - with my dad - if the civil war was about slavery or "states rights". It's impossible to get him to look at the harm being done right now. What is happening now and who is doing it.

This was a disorganized commentary, but I'm so damn tired. Most of my adult life has been spent in wartime. Social services are inching toward something better, but people are dying right now. I have 3 nurses in my family. 2 of them think the vaccines are poison. I was happy to celebrate with the 3rd aunt that hospitals are now required to transparently publish the cost of services and commodities. Another friend of mine has an extreme allergy to nuts. There's now a $35 cap on epipens thanks to the last President. We're making some progress, it's just too slow to help all of us. Everything from social services to education to being overworked to the cost of living to... it's the slowest burn, and there's less oxygen in the room every year.

There's too much power in the hands of the perceived figure head.

marcusverus• 4 years ago

Think of presidents as figure heads. They represent an idea but they don’t have as much power as many think.

This is a bad take. The presidential veto is hugely powerful, since a veto can only be overridden if two-thirds of both houses of congress vote to override. Meaning only bills with strong bipartisan support (i.e. the kind that don't get vetoed) can survive a veto.

If you don't have the Presidency, you don't pass legislation.

steelstraw2• 4 years ago

I'm actually feeling like 2024 will be the best shot we've had for a 3rd party candidate. People are really fed up with both parties and always getting roped into voting for the lesser evil.

Independents are the largest group by far and growing:

https://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Pro...

rootusrootus2• 4 years ago

People are really fed up with both parties and always getting roped into voting for the lesser evil.

This sounds a lot like a ploy to get the other side to try and vote their conscience in the next election, which will keep their tribe from winning the election. I do hear a lot of frustration with the status quo out there, but the very next sentence clarifies that everyone puts 100% of the blame with the other side.

pm905• 4 years ago

The only way for 3rd parties to become a reality is for voting to become much more easier, convenient and fairer. With laws that make it hard to vote, you lose more and more of the public from the political discourse. Fairer systems like Ranked Choice Voting make it even more easy for people to express their preferences without the fear of losing to the least favored party.

Without reforms 3rd parties have 0 chance. They are simply used as convenient political tools by either one of the major parties and should be recognized as such.

gunfighthacksaw2• 4 years ago

People are really fed up with both parties and always getting roped into voting for the lesser evil.

Pretty sure this has been the case for every US election cycle since I was born.

drdec• 4 years ago

If you want a third party, vote for a third party. Stop wasting your vote on the lesser of two evils.

gremlinsinc6• 4 years ago

I'm so in on 3rd parties... I'll vote green or libertarian rather than democrat if I have a choice. TBF I'm a leftist libertarian, but can't stand the AnCap right libs, but I mean, if I had to choose between them and someone like Manchin or Sinema it's a no brainer... or even Pelosi. I'd definitely support people like Bernie, and AOC but they are far and few between...

jokethrowaway5• 4 years ago

There are third parties. The libertarian party presented one of the best candidates I've ever seen in any election ever in 2020: https://joj2020.com/ Good luck getting adoption, though.

My practical advice is to shop for the least worse country you can find, my friend. There is no point worrying about politics, they're a class above ours and they'll always find a way to do what they want with your money. Why does spending grows every election cycle, whether you have a right or left government?

Don't get mad about what you can't control. Treat politics like a hobby; it's surely a great and fun hobby to have.

Or get insanely rich and then you'll have a way to influence things.

My only hope is that eventually some libertarian ultra-billionaires will be tired enough of our society, flat out buy the government and media of a small country and push it to become a minarchist or an anarchist society. The chance of that happening is really small: when you're really rich you start to see the benefits of the system we live in, so you may want to throw your principles off the window and just focus on what you like doing.

somewhereoutth2• 4 years ago

Returning to Europe after a few years in the US, the first thing I noticed back here was that nobody was afraid.

vlahmot• 4 years ago

Afraid of a specific thing or no fear in general?

granshaw• 4 years ago

Afraid of their future I’m assuming, with a much better welfare and safety net in Europe

tormeh• 4 years ago

Hard to generalize over European countries, but you can think of most European governments as insurance companies with their own army. No matter how hard you fuck up, as long as you are able to fill out paperwork you'll have food, healthcare, and a (shitty) apartment. None of this is free for taxpayers, obviously, but it is what it is.

somewhereoutth2• 4 years ago

No fear in general. You can sense when people are fearful. No one - not one single person - is fearful in Europe (hyperbol of course, but not so far off). Again, it is the very visceral lack of fear that hit me when I returned. Hit me really hard (in a good way!). Visceral is exactly the word.

It doesn't mean it is paradise, but it is a good start.

I suppose in Europe the land and the people are one, in a way that doesn't really apply to our historical now completely out of hand 'camping trips'.

I do really miss the US though, there are many good things - like your trucks with snouts!

jokethrowaway5• 4 years ago

Even ignoring the current corona craze, which had most of Europe under draconian policies - people in Europe see stagnant salaries, less and less jobs, no prospect of a pension you can live on, high skilled youth immigrating out, low skilled youth immigrating in, more crimes, prices raising.

Most europeans have been worried for the last 20 years. Scandinavia, the UK and Switzerland are the only places where the magnitude of the effect is lower.

xnx• 4 years ago

Exactly. You're a lot more likely to practice the tightrope (and benefit from the experience) when there's a [social] safety net.

silisili6• 4 years ago

It's housing. Fix housing, and people will be happier.

Seriously, I lurk a lot of places, and everyone is up in arms about cost of living at the moment. Reading most Reddit threads that mention housing will have 5k+ comments, all saying the same thing. People are at their breaking point.

ggm3• 4 years ago

This. I think Maslow is often over-stated, but fear of unstable housing and exposure to random costs is HUGE in personal wellbeing.

The people who can fix it have voter skin in the game and a lot of fear around the outcome: A cohort of investors have been lied to about the perpetual money making machine of house ownership, at the cost of home ownership for ordinary (young) people.

throwaway67344• 4 years ago

A cohort of investors have been lied to about the perpetual money making machine of house ownership

It's not investors that's the issue, it's your average older american whose home represents a significant amount of their wealth

pydry• 4 years ago

fear of unstable housing and exposure to random costs is HUGE in personal wellbeing.

Keeps people on their toes at work though, which is good for the bottom line.

There's a lot invested in housing instability. While it would be democratically popular, any democratic movement that tries to fight it is going to be attacked on all sides.

poulsbohemian2• 4 years ago

May I ask what your recommendations would be for this? What's broken and how would you fix it?

throwaway67344• 4 years ago

Build more housing

silisili6• 4 years ago

I'm not smart enough to tell you what would work, but I've read a few ideas I'll throw out there as possibilities over the past couple years -

1 - Build more housing.

2 - Eliminate weird NIMBYisms in a lot of places.

3 - Rent controls

4 - Eliminate corporate ownership of SFH

5 - Progressive property taxing

Instead, we've done absolutely nothing, and that unfortunately didn't seem to work.

adam_arthur6• 4 years ago

Fed should have hiked rates or started QT a year ago. Even 6 months ago it was pretty obvious the economy was rapidly approaching full employment.

Feds policies led to artificially low interest rates which juices prices. But the prices become sticky when rates rise again, which they are now.

All locales should allow for greater density, and YIMBY attitude needs to prevail over NIMBY. Plenty of people would love to live in small place in a great neighborhood. It's exclusionary and increases wealth disparity to prevent construction in desirable areas. Though denser zoning can actually be lucrative to homeowners (landowners).

Government could also easily curb investor activity in residential by limiting the amount of leverage investors can use for buy and hold rentals. E.g. investors need to put 50% down if it's a buy and hold, and not just a flip. This would clearly kill large amounts of speculation in the SFH market.

gremlinsinc6• 4 years ago

STart a co-op? If you can get 200 people to buy land, and build tiny homesteads and a warehouse for shared goods (tools, ATVS, RVs, etc) you cut back on consumerism, help the environment, AND you take renters out of the rental market. All of a sudden holding onto a rental property doesn't seem so much fun when there's nobody wanting to live there because they can live in our beautiful mountain eco-village for $300/month, and get a real community that's more like a family and supports one another.

adam_arthur6• 4 years ago

If only the Fed had cared at all that home prices were appreciating twice as fast as they ever did during the housing bubble.

And tapped the breaks, rather than opening the floodgates to speculative frenzies across the board.

They were a big reason for the 90s tech bubble and 2000s housing bubble too due to excessive rate cuts.

Pretty clear they should have considered velocity of the economy and not simply point in time employment and inflation values (which are lagging indicators)

Oh well...

rufus_foreman4• 4 years ago

Are you sure you're thinking this through?

The Fed is actually about to hit the brakes, people are expecting 7 rate increases this year and more next year. The current 30 year mortgage rate is around 3.5%, the median sale price for a house in the bay area is $1.5 million. With 20% down that's $3500 a month for principal and interest. If the Fed follows through and raises rates say 2%, it turns into $5500 a month.

Doesn't do much for affordability.

And if you're thinking prices will fall when rates rise, that's not what has happened in the past. Over the last 50 years, every time there has been an environment with rising interest rates, housing prices have gone up, not down: https://awealthofcommonsense.com/2022/01/will-higher-mortgag.... So you will be paying a much higher rate on a more expensive house.

zwkrt• 4 years ago

Since the beginning of covid i I have been living with 2 friends in a shared house. The house is 1600 square feet, 105 years old, only has one bathroom. And you know what? We get along great, with a yard, space to play music, and shared cooking responsibilities (its just as easy to cook for 3 as it is to cook fr yourself!)

For the same rent I pay I could live in a tiny studio apartment with a non functional kitchen and a view into someone else’s non-functional studio, and I would go totally insane. But the tiny studio is all that is a large part if the new housing stock in my city (seattle) right now, with no sign of stopping.

My take is that our collective focus on individualism has somehow tricked people into thinking that living alone is an important component of success, and people seem to want it at the expense of having a functional life and functional community.

I understand we can’t all live in (multi family) single family housing arrangements, but it saddens me to see that new construction doesn't make space for more shared living. It is cheaper, more efficient, better for mental health, arguably better for children, and wildly unpopular.

zepto11• 4 years ago

Or it could be that you are just lucky to have friends who are easy to live with.

mjmahone17• 4 years ago

It’s not necessarily that it’s unpopular: zoning laws make it mostly illegal. Lots of cities disallow too many unrelated adults from living in the same house, and Single Room Occupancy is mostly illegal to build.

I actually agree and know a lot of people that would choose to live in more communal settings if they were available. But mostly that kind of housing doesn’t really exist: you instead have to convert single family housing to communal, and a lot of the time that means weird compromises.

leetcrew• 4 years ago

living with friends can be great. I've done that and really enjoyed it. but you don't always have the luxury of great friends right away in a new place. living with randoms is more of a mixed bag. sometimes they become new friends; sometimes they just bring stress and destabilize your life. I see studios/1BRs as a way to cut out this variance while also sacrificing money and some potential upsides.

I don't really see how apartments are unfriendly to communal living though. 2BRs are very common in new developments (where I live anyway) and 3BRs aren't that hard to find either. I don't find yards to be essential to getting the benefits of communal living.

nine_zeros2• 4 years ago

My take is that for people who want the option of living alone - even if occasionally or due to life circumstances - don't have the option.

I've seen 60 yr old grannies trying to find roommates. It's sad.

twelve40• 4 years ago

get a wife, you'll learn all about what's "better for children"

saying this as a person who would also theoretically prefer 105 year old houses and digital nomad lifestyle, but.

moltar2• 4 years ago

You forget people have families and non tech salaries.

manuelabeledo• 4 years ago

And healthcare. And education.

And I'm convinced that if these basic necessities were fulfilled, the US would see a dramatic reduction in crime and violence.

chasd00• 4 years ago

If no one can afford housing then why is it priced so high? Apparently there are buyers right? Otherwise, prices would be lower.

crooked-v2• 4 years ago

The moderately wealthy (probably overrepresented on HN) can afford housing. Everybody else gets to choose between either fighting over whatever's left over or moving somewhere that's cheap but not actually where they want to live.

symlinkk• 4 years ago

A lot of houses are sold to be rented out. I personally know someone who bought a house a year ago, saw it appreciate $150k, and is now using that as a down payment on an investment property. It’s sickening.

Jtsummers3• 4 years ago

Zillow and others helped to inflate the prices. Around here (Colorado) they were buying up houses at $30k-50k over asking and often within 1-3 days of listing, which meant people weren't willing to sell for the reasonable prices. And once Zillow or companies like them owned the houses, they weren't (until forced) willing to sell for a loss.

MattPalmer1086• 4 years ago

Prices are set at the margin, and house prices are sticky on the way down as noone wants to sell for a loss. Instead volume of sales decline, unless sales are forced by foreclosure. Also cheap borrowing and risky lending practices.

belter• 4 years ago

Housing is a huge problem in other countries also. Low interest rates being the main cause for it. Large pension funds and other investors gobble up properties looking for yield they can't get in other investments.

"Why is there a housing shortage in the Netherlands?" https://dutchreview.com/expat/housing/why-is-there-a-housing...

"Germany's next government aims to tackle housing crisis" https://www.dw.com/en/germanys-next-government-aims-to-tackl...

"The History of the UK's Housing Crisis" https://www.vice.com/en/article/k78mm3/the-history-of-the-uk...

LimaBearz2• 4 years ago

I wish we could all just agree that some things just aren't meant to be for investors and that not all things are meant to have a laissez faire capitalist approach..

I've been looking at properties in LCOL & remote areas of the US and prices shot straight up in 2020/2021 to the point where even having high salary fo an HCOL they become unaffordable. Those places haven't seen wild growths in population and the people are purely speculating as a result of the artificial inflation caused by Zillow and friends.

Looking yesterday those properties are on the market still, some for 6+ months now with little to no drop in price... the sellers are delusional

closeparen• 4 years ago

Housing becoming affordable would be be great for young people, but the older people who own the houses would be pretty upset about the destruction of their life savings and their newly-underwater mortgages. I’m not sure it really increases aggregate happiness.

ChrisLomont5• 4 years ago

The data don't support the claim "it's housing." The change happened exactly and spectacularly at COVID; housing complaints significantly predate this.

adam_arthur6• 4 years ago

While true that the first leg down was when covid hit, there's a noticeable second leg down in the summer of 2021. This also happens to be when inflation/price increases started to accelerate.

It could also be due to govt aid programs expiring, leading to less disposable income.

DeRock• 4 years ago

Housing prices accelerated greatly since the start of COVID: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/csushpinsa

rufus_foreman4• 4 years ago

Housing is relatively affordable now compared to the past. Yes, house prices are high, but interest rates are low and household incomes are high. There is a post about it at Calculated Risk at https://calculatedrisk.substack.com/p/real-house-prices-pric... that has an affordability index. The only time housing has been more affordable was after the financial crisis.

If housing affordability affected happiness, unhappiness should have been off the charts in the early 1980's. But it wasn't, according to the linked article. People were as happy as ever while taking out mortgages at 18% interest.

xg15• 4 years ago

and household incomes are high

I've got no data, but I wonder if rising inequality might be warping the statistics here.

At least, if incomes were really high across all population segments affected by the housing crisis, we shouldn't see so much talk about unaffordable cost of living, student debt, healthcare costs, etc. Something doesn't add up here.

Household incomes might be extremely high for certain groups (e.g. tech workers) while too low to afford decent housing in other groups.

If housing affordability affected happiness, unhappiness should have been off the charts in the early 1980's. But it wasn't, according to the linked article. People were as happy as ever while taking out mortgages at 18% interest

This might as well indicate that this way to calculate housing availability is wrong, not that housing availability doesn't affect happiness.

gremlinsinc6• 4 years ago

Average income is 68k, average home price is 408k...

According to a google search on how much can a person afford for a home at 60k... you get this:

The usual rule of thumb is that you can afford a mortgage two to 2.5 times your annual income. That's a $120,000 to $150,000 mortgage at $60,000.

Can you please tell me how one gets homes at these rates? Because I don't see any available, not here in Utah which isn't even a huge COL state... or anywhere else..

Edit..so to afford the AVERAGE home in America you'd need at least 163k per year annual salary.

Wesxdz• 4 years ago

I spent 6 months helping to prototype and build the Seed Eco Home at Open Source Ecology ('a modular incremental 1000sqft home that two people can build in a week for $50,000') to help solve housing. https://wiki.opensourceecology.org/wiki/Seed_Eco-Home Unfortunately, the apprenticeship program was underfunded due to the lack of participation caused by COVID, and maybe more broadly, despite what people say, they are not actually interested in collaborating to reduce human suffering/advance humanity by solving problems like housing when there are personal sacrifices/opportunity costs involved. Look at something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depopulation_of_the_Great_Plai... and it's pretty clear that the problem with housing is mainly social inequality rather than any underlying technical bottleneck...

fleddr• 4 years ago

A bit of a chart crime going on here. The source: https://gssdataexplorer.norc.org/trends

The original source shows more clearly how they only survey once every 3 years. So it's 2018 and 2021. The curvy line in the HN source suggests that 2019 and 2020 saw equal declines but this is an illusion as there's no data.

Obviously the pandemic likely explains the difference between 2018 and 2021, but another interesting difference is that where they normally do in-person interviews, this time they used email. This might only strengthen the effect of "misery" as people tend to shy away from saying they're unhappy in person but gladly do so via email.

Finally, some perspective is missing. Change the response in the link I shared to "Pretty happy" and it's a stable 55%, rising even. If you combine "very happy" and "pretty happy", you end up at some 75%.

"For the first time in polling history, in other words, Americans are more likely to say they’re not happy than to say they’re very happy."

Versus:

"Consistent with the entire polling history, the vast majority (75%) of Americans are pretty happy to very happy, despite the pandemic causing a spike in unhappy people."

New data shows Americans more miserable than we've been in half a century

Related Stories