Is bigger, better?
In a comment from @seattlea, he mentioned how the cottage we were at was small compared to the US, and it got me thinking about whether bigger is better. He mentioned that his friend has a +360m cottage and considers it small, but for me at least, that would be a nightmare. The maintenance, the cleaning, the constant upkeep that would be required...
Only in America?
Compared to Finland, Australia is a place that has wide roads. But over the last decade, I have been reading how American trucks have been taking over, and seen pictures of them not fitting on the roads. Parking them must be a nightmare. I have seen a couple around the city here and they are ridiculously impractical.
To each their own.
I think that the "bigger is better" attitude reminiscent of the US speaks to the mindset where more is better also. And this ties heavily into the massive consumer mentality that sees 5% of the world's population consuming 30% of the world's resources. I don't see this as success, I see it as failure, because it indicates wastage and a disregard for others. It is an act of selfishness.
I want more, no matter the impact on others.
Yet, it is this very attitude that has become the encouraged standard and has led us to where we are today, with a society that is falling apart, rampant physical and mental health issues, violence, polarisation and war. These among many other things, are all tied into the mechanism of always more.
Yet, most people don't think about what happens in an "always more" world, because compounding growth very quickly makes the entire system unsustainable. For instance, if a company is expected to increase profit by 10% each year, it needs to double its growth every 7 years or so. If simultaneously people are expected to double their growth by 10% each year, what happens? And this is part of the reason why wage growth has been massively outstripped by profit growth, because in order for the companies to keep profiting, they have to keep taking more and more from people. And since 2000 or so, profits have skyrocketed, while wages have remained comparatively stagnant.
And this is just the start of the trend, because it is going to get increasingly worse as corporations find new ways to take more from the economic pie, while returning less to employees or in goods and service value. This leads to a widening wealth gap that will increasingly see more and more people drop away from the top, while the top speeds off into the stratosphere. A top that will include fewer and fewer people.
And this is where I think it might get interesting in the US, because as the middle and upper middle fall increasingly away from the top, their mindset of "always more, always bigger" becomes increasingly difficult to maintain, and this leads to an increase in a host of other social problems - some of which we are already seeing now, over the last couple decades.
The problem is that we are wired to want more as a species, without the sense to process what it is we need in order to grow sustainably. The gratification of getting more that quickly dissipates to wanting more again, is like a kid (or an adult) eating candy until they feel sick, look sick, and are unable to function. And this is fast where we are approaching, where we as a society are unable to function. And I suggest those who think otherwise based on their own surroundings and experience, go for a walk through some of the poorer parts of their city and take a look around. Those areas and number of locations are expanding.
While the houses, holiday homes and yachts get larger and fancier, the lives of everyday people keeps on contracting, with opportunities disappearing. This gap is further highlighted by the media, social platforms, and ultimately, people are going to feel it. The response is predictable, because people have felt oppressed in the past and it always leads to the same outcome - more violence.
Is this humanity winning?
Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]
Be part of the Hive discussion.
- Comment on the topics of the article, and add your perspectives and experiences.
- Read and discuss with others who comment and build your personal network
- Engage well with me and others and put in effort
And you may be rewarded.
To me 360+ Square meters feels large, we live in a smaller place 288 square meters and it is plenty for the three of us. Also according to available statistics 360+ is not an average American home. But as you can see from the attached image overall the trend is larger homes with less people living in them in America.
I lived in USA in homes that were sized between 2100 and 4000 square feet and for me 3000 ( around 279 square meters) square feet is optimal for three people maintenance, convenience and cost wise.
Same in Australia. Doesn't this make a "cost of housing" argument pretty silly? Much larger houses, fewer people in them.
Our house is considered very large for 3 people here, and it is 200sqm living + 100 in the cold basement which doesn't count as living. It is plenty :)
We don't really need 288 meters 200 would have been enough, the problem was that when we were looking at houses our criteria was:
We found a perfect location and only two new homes remained in our development:
Which would you choose?
P.S. Houses are next to each other, adjacent lots and same view smaller house also had just a one car garage... which is not counted in house square meters.
I think a lot of it just depends on where you live. There is also a distinct difference at least in my state between a cottage, a cabin, and a lake house. Of course someone who makes a couple mil a year might call their second home a cottage, but they aren't fooling anyone, it's a freaking lake house. My buddy has a small cottage on 10 acres in the upper peninsula. The whole things is maybe the size of a small room.
Well the people I talked about have been owners of a chain of movie theaters and other businesses, they live in Hawaii in a seven thousand square foot house I would call a mansion. They own a multi million dollar condo in downtown Seattle as well as a few homes on the lake and ocean and one of them they called "our little house on the bluff" that is a different kind of crowd...
Now that makes more sense! :) Guess I picked the wrong career... :P
Yeah, I get it isn't the norm, but it is also one of the desires of many, right? A lot of people here, even with the money, wouldn't buy a massive mansion. They might buy a better boat though :D
I consider a boat to be a money pit :)
Get a European vacation home instead 😀
Yeah, this is common for the older ones here too. Now, they are like a couple small rooms :D
Nice place to hang out, potter around, fish perhaps. No need to impress anyone, just enjoy :)
Yeah, it's a pretty awesome place. I've only been there once, but it's a really cool rustic homestead. Just gotta watch out for bears.
Bigger is better when you can afford to have someone else take care of maintenance, cleaning and all around it. But if you are not Richie Rich, open space and manageable sqm is the way to go. And if nature elevates the beauty, you simply don't need much besides that in order to embrace it all.
I am not so sure. It means to be forever reliant on others.
True as well, but that's a different lifestyle which very few can afford.
Manageable properties are the way to go - for example I bought few years ago 4000 sqm in the mountains at less than 1 km from a ski resort. Big dreams, but simply I couldn't manage or develop a project there. So I've decided to sell it and if I still want opt-in for a smaller piece of land and/or cabin.
Hopefully you will at least get back what you put in or even better, make some profit on it. 4000 is a lot of space!
Bigger is not automatically better and smaller is not better either. What should be a priority is getting something efficient, appropriate and beneficial.
Some people are only happy when they feel they are beating others. The thing is, there is always someone who is bigger, stronger and has more.
I am perfectly happy with the size of our house. For now at least. Because at some point in the future I will run out of walls to hang my own pieces and paint by numbers sets.(I don't think that I will be buying more sets that reason).
You don't have to hang everything, do you? Just enjoy the doing :)
Yes that is true. But I am still worried that eventually I will not have enough walls. So far I hanged only a few of my pieces but many paint by numbers sets.
I think we will look for more simplicity, quality, and balance in life in the future.
I think it is a smart move. Keep it simple, long-lasting, and easy to maintain.
I don't think bigger always means better. Sometimes having just enough and being happy with it gives more peace than always wanting more.
One of the major problems we face in life, is believing we always need more and better.
yes.. MORE, MORE.. Bigger is better.. consume..
good things come in small packages (like little dogs and, ummmm, other things)
:D
What am I gonna say? XD
I would have liked to go a fair bit bigger as when we bought I was planning for multigenerational living in case the kids couldn't or didn't want to move out and also if we were unable to move in ten years like J wanted. The kids are unable to move out and we were unable to move (apparently entirely my fault for being "too picky") and the house has been fine with three pretty much adult children living here, would be a little bit cramped but manageable with partners living here full time, and could short term support grandkids in a pinch at least while they were small enough to keep in the same room but that would be really, really, really tight and would require modifications/renovations that J and I are still arguing about to be actually sustainable.
On the bright side, the house in its current state and land is a nice enough size for a couple of old fogies (or more specifically us).
ps - afterthought, I think bigger is only better to a point and after that it's just wtf.
It's kinda waste vs. success. What some call prosperity can also be seen as disregard for sustainability and fairness.
Bigger is better if you are a porn star :)