You get one built. You can literally buy them on eBay.

I do appreciate the switcheroo though. We've gone from oh crap he finally showed that homes aren't out of control, let's switch it to apartment rent, which was never remotely part of the argument, nor does it have ANY relation to whether on an inflation, interest, and square foot adjusted basis, home prices have not increased.

On that note, I even mentioned a couple posts ago, that rent prices are insane. Fortunately, our federal government already provides loans for little money down to help people stuck in this very predicament who would still like to buy a house.

Actually, that debunks your point, considering your point was that the prices of homes "really haven't outpaced inflation". 

Homes have outpaced inflation and wages.  That's not a matter of opinion, that's a matter of financial record.

We are talking about the effect of housing costs on people in poverty. Rent cost is absolutely central to that discussion.

Also, we haven't gone from anything. I'm one person who thinks this conversation is stupid.

They have said smaller houses don't exist.

Each time I bring up the price per square foot argument, I get a counter saying that this is representative of no smaller homes being affordable/available for lower class people.

But now apparently we are going to ignore the tiny homes available online, and say that nobody ever indicated smaller homes (for an affordable price) weren't available.

What is actually happening right now?

So if smaller homes (for an affordable price) are actually a thing (which they certainly are with tiny homes, or even homes in the sub 1400-1500 sq ft range)...then what exactly is the problem here?

I mean if the argument here is that even a low income person should be able to afford what is currently an "average" house, we are arguing about two ENTIRELY different things.

Fake whining.

I never said anything about smaller homes, only average sizes, family incomes, and house prices (with a median thrown in for good measure).  The fact is that the average cost per square foot has increased disproportionately relative to both inflation and the average house's size, a fact which manifestly contradicts your position (as previously explained).

But, it doesn't debunk my point.

Let me write this clearly. Maybe you will understand.

The same, comparable home from 50 years ago to today, has not increased at a rate faster than inflation.

You cannot look at an average home from 50 years ago, proceed to compare it to an average home from today, and say, well the price has went up faster than inflation. You are comparing two entirely different things, and then trying to point out that thing 2 is more expensive than thing 1.

It's the very reason price per square foot is utilized so frequently with home prices. While not perfect (since there are also other factors going into it), it's really the easiest way for me to compare a 2400 square foot house and a 3000 square foot house and knowing if I'm getting decent value if both have similar build styles.

Lol, you've now made your statement a complete lie.

You have officially added that the "average cost per square foot has increased disproportionately relative to both inflation and the average house's size".

The average house has increased. The average cost PER square foot has not.

Regarding the rent discussion, that is one segment I quite frankly don't understand. While costs per square foot really haven't gone up adjusted for inflation, somehow the cost of renting this space has simply went through the roof.

Fortunately, there are loan products available with minimal money down (and some regions/counties/cities have further subsidies for low income individuals). MN for instance reimburses a substantial portion of your property taxes (or rent for that matter) depending entirely on your income level.

"Certain demographics are being left out of the market".

I've established that cheaper homes ARE available, but people have chosen to not live in them. They aren't left out of the market, they have chosen that they don't want to live in the homes that are affordable to them.

Regarding land, the choice for many with tiny homes is likely RV parks etc (as tiny homes are technically an RV).

It really is an extremely cheap way to live. While I wouldn't love it, I've enjoyed watching shows on people adjusting their lifestyles to it.

Sure I can.  Since your point was that the prices of homes "really haven't outpaced inflation", comparing the average costs back then to the average costs now, relative to inflation, was fair game.  And in so doing, your position was thoroughly debunked.  Even when looking at the price per square footage, it tells the same story.  Not only is the average cost shooting up faster than inflation, it is doing so disproportionately to family income (despite the average family income being higher).

78 486 in today’s currency buys about 983 sq feet in 1950, or roughly $79 dollars per square foot.  (Total cost: 2.22x family income)
299 000 (Median) in today’s currency buys about 2543 sq feet in 2019, or roughly $117 per square foot. (Total cost: 4.80x family income)
362 000 (Average) in today’s currency buys about 2543 sq feet in 2019, or roughly $142 per square foot. (Total cost: 5.84x family income)

Homes have outpaced inflation and wages.  That's not a matter of opinion, that's a matter of financial record.

Let's go back to...is our argument that everybody should be able to afford what is currently an "average" house.

I might even bite to that and say it's a legitimate argument. The current quality of life for the poor in our country isn't amazing. Its not worse than it was 50+ years ago (which is what got me fired up in the first place), but it's not amazing.

I don't know a perfect fix, because I don't necessarily have an issue with people being incredibly wealthy either.

I mean, there is just the classic, raise the wage for all of the poor.

Does that really work though? Many restaurant owners, grocery stores, etc always seem to indicate they run on razor thin bottom line margins, which would likely mean increased prices (maybe the increases would be less substantial than the raises?).

Big factories already seem to be progressing to more and more automation. This makes me think having even higher costs for their workers will only make the push occur faster yet (as it will be deemed a better investment). I think this is why people like Yang are pushing the universal income. I know studies have shown on a small basis that people who receive this tend to use it towards basic things, and not frivolous items...but once again, would this work on a massive scale? I wish I knew.