Americans like Big Berths

In my not so little anymore community (not pictured), there is a heated debate currently underway about a new development project that is counter-intuitively been dubbed the “85/15 Open Space” project. The coastal area in which this development is proposed will enable the natural landscape (specifically estuary and lagoon) to become more accessible for walking and viewing by the public as a natural reserve. The proposed development also includes park areas along a green belt, and an outdoor mall less than 1 mile from an existing ‘Outlet Mall’). Another part of this 85% for nature and 15% for humans project includes the protection of a community loved, family owned and operated large strawberry field (supposedly due to close based on financial instability of the owners and the costs associated with the property).

In every town across America, in perhaps every community in the world, there are two opposing camps trying to find a happy medium where both can live in harmony.  Most generally I am referring to the ones in favor of progress (change/development/growth) and the other against this type of activity to their territories, be it personal and/or public. A resistance to change is likely at play, psychologically or subliminally as well. We all know rationally and consciously our bedroom as a child, our hometown, or favorite place to sneak away to has inevitably changed, and we accept this but still cringe at flux.

Image By Alcinoe at en.wikibooks [Public domain], from Wikimedia Commons. NY cheesecake.

I am no economist, more of a theoretical spectator; I (like you) have witnessed an imbalance within some communities that are under the impression their community is unique in some way (i.e. worth preserving, not in my backyard mentality). Even if it is the only place to get real cheesecake, or real pizza, across Everytown, USA, this same mentality pervades. We are not as unique as we think we are or claim to be.

Image By Gillette, Bill, 1932-, Photographer (NARA record: 8464444) (U.S. National Archives and Records Administration) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons. Housing development encroaches upon farmland.

There is an overall stereotype that Americans like big things, not just in Texas. From cars, to body parts, to super-size food and beverages, even the landscape cooperates with this perspective (from the Grand Canyon to the Monterey Bay), the proof is in the pictures that tell more than 1,000 words. Even our berths are big. Recent reports have noted that the available housing (and square footage) has increased in America “tenfold” compared to a “fivefold” population increase, while the average household size has been decreasing by as much as half over a span of the last 120 years. This data was elaborated upon as part of a more comprehensive study published with the title “120 Years of U.S. Residential Housing Stock and Floor Space”, written by Maria Cecilia P. Moura, Steven J. Smith and David B. Belzer.  Taking into account various (incalculable) factors such as the housing fiasco, the Baby Boom era, and a wide range of socio-economic and cultural factors their study aggregated all sorts of graphed and plot-able information to demonstrate an overall trend over the course of a bigger picture.  Not just generationally how we have been changing or growing, but how (or if) our communities evolve).  From above, a bigger perspective at the whole of how our history will be written in the future based on what we call “development”.

“Over the 1891–2010 period, floor space increased almost tenfold, from approximately 24,700 to 235,150 million square feet, corresponding to a doubling of floor space per capita from approximately 400 to 800 square feet. While population increased five times over the period, a 50% decrease in household size contributed towards a tenfold increase in the number of housing units and floor space, while average floor space per unit remains surprisingly constant, as a result of housing retirement dynamics. In the last 30 years, however, these trends appear to be changing, as household size shows signs of leveling off, or even increasing again, while average floor space per unit has been increasing. GDP and total floor space show a remarkably constant growth trend over the period and total residential sector primary energy consumption and floor space show a similar growth trend over the last 60 years, decoupling only within the last decade.” (Abstract from study)

It seems factually supported that Americans like big berths, not just Kim Kardashian sized, but getting larger and larger exponentially over time.

Image By Clix69 (Own work) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons.

I came across an infographic sourced from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics entitled “100 Years of US Consumer Spending: Data for the Nation, New York City and Boston”. As you will notice the blue bars denoting the costs of housing (very generally for Urban Areas Only) indicate that based on income we are spending roughly between 23% -35% of our income on this necessity. 

I’m sure you have also seen the trend of the “tiny house” and truly, the repurposing genius of thinking outside the shipping crate for not just housing, but retail and emergency purposes, but it is realistic for bigger is better Americans to downsize? I used to play in my toy chest, but I don’t think I could live there now. I’d rather be camping under the “Big” sky.

Depending on how much time you spend at home and what you do (work or hobbies that may dictate your residential/professional needs) certainly correlates to just how much space you need. It’s just as important to consider how many people are in your family and their corresponding respective age(s) which affect house sizes.  

While it seems there is a decline in both the employable and employed number of Americans in 2015, we are also spending less on food and clothing (according to the infographic) compared to the start of the 19^th century.

Looking to the experts or, the elite and scholarly ilk of American genius, robots will likely be replacing as much as 47% of the workforce in the not so far off future. This confident projection has caused an explosive reaction across various “expert fields”. It’s useless to predict for certain either way if this is our ultimate solution for ‘working smarter (not harder’), just like the tangible fruition of Hover boards, maybe one day (we can dream and hope). Of course, in certain fields a ‘human touch’ is irreplaceable or is it? Accuracy? Bias? Efficiency?

The thought makes many people nervous.

Image By Facontidavide at en.wikipedia [Public domain], from Wikimedia Commons. REEM-a humanoid robot.

“What makes this round of innovation potentially different is that robots have become smart. Computers and other digital advances are doing for mental power … what the steam engine and its descendants did for muscle power,” write MIT Initiative on the Digital Economy co-directors Andrew McAfee and Erik Brynjolfsson in The Second Machine Age. A 2013 paper by Oxford academics Carl B. Frey and Michael A. Osborne predicts that 47 percent of U.S. jobs are at risk of automation.
Smart technologies already exist that demonstrate the vulnerability of white-collar service jobs to automation. There are computers that can make medical diagnoses with fewer errors than humans, and one venture capital firm has given a computer algorithm a voting position on its board of directors. Creative jobs are not immune, either. There are song-writing robots whose compositions are virtually indistinguishable from humans’, and, according to one New York Times op-ed, robots are responsible for writing a “shocking” amount of news stories. All prompt the question: how will these technologies affect human employability?”-Harvard Political Review

It seems the microcosm of imbalance lies within one’s personal philosophy of growth, or what growth means, and growth in our overall direction as a national workforce and in our own communities. Most people I know are self-empowered (or self-employed); most people I know are also not financially rich (arguably by some standards they would be considered so). Purpose and control (or the illusion of) is quite obviously more important to many than social security, retirement, climbing up a rickety ladder, or participating in generating someone else’s material wealth as a fulfilling life’s worth/life’s work/”career”.

I personally do not desire a big house, or a large SUV, I do not have A/C, I’m a renter, my vehicles are paid off (and old) and I don’t consume fast food or eat out often. I don’t own a Prius, have solar panels (or a rain barrel), I don’t know where I want to own a home (if I do), I am not married (and don’t know if I want to be), I drive less than 20 miles a week, I’m an artist but not an activist and I try to waste not want not, but that’s an effort to practice- not an attempt to preach.

The baby “New World”, or, the 200 year young country of America, barely has had enough history to look past pilgrims and pillaging. We are still attempting to divide and conquer in our own communities (households). “Open space”, like the nick-named project in my own community and other development projects, demonstrate an attempt at compromise, which is a start of governments working with their community members while able to line their projections with revenue (often, the same people that oppose this project are the first to complain about potholes, noise pollution, or other such menaces to society).

Image of painting by By Voice of America [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons. The Wealth of the Nation.

As a nation, the 52 states seem anything but united, despite being woven with common threads, such as rivers, lakes and mountains. And the obvious needs to share and rely upon our GDP (and Nonfarm Payrolls or employable workforce), yet we somehow share this land as a chain of islands,albeit in what we call a democratic way.

Majority rules. Bigger is better. Take until nothing is left (we’ll figure it out later). He who does with the most toys…(was the worst hoarder).

I wonder, where will the robots live?

“Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself.”

-Leo Tolstoy

“You must be the change you wish to see in the world.”

-Mahatma Gandhi

Original Art By Horacio Cardozo at English Wikipedia [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons. Karma (oil). 

First Image: Image By U.S. Navy photo by Chris Carson [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons.Key West Naval housing development.