How Small is Big Enough?

While waxing poetic about the good old days of the mid-twentieth century, one frequently mentioned criteria of "quality of life" is the fact that in the "good old days" only one parent had to work to support the household. Discussion usually stops at that point, with a nostalgic sigh. But there are some important observations that should be made regarding some of the reasons why it takes two paychecks to support a family these days. With all our modern technology, why should the cost of living really be that much higher than it used to be?

In point of fact, the cost of living is not any higher today than it was in those halcyon days of 1955. It's actually lower. Now before you jump at that assertion, let me point out of couple of interesting facts. The Census Bureau tells us that in 2005 the average new home contained 2,434 square feet of living space. According to the National Association of Home Builders the average new home in the 1950's contained less than 1,000 square feet. During that same span of time the average household has shrunk from 5.5 people to just two people per household. In other words, we have gone from 182 square feet per person to 1217 square feet per person. That means we are paying for almost 7 times as much living space per person as our parents (or grand parents) did in 1950. I would call seven times the space for only twice the price (in working hours) a real bargain!

Set aside, for the moment, that the average household today has 2.5 times as many cars and 3 to 4 times as many TV sets as we had in the 1950's. Our biggest expense is living space. It's clear that the main reason why we have to have two parents working, and two parents driving cars to work, (consuming twice as much gasoline and putting twice as much carbon dioxide into the air) is that we are convinced that we really need seven times as much space per person as our parents or grand parents needed.

If we could but find contentment in buying only twice the space per person that our parents got by with, why that right there would eliminate the need for both parents to work. That right there would cut our carbon footprint by 60% or more. In fact, if you really wanted to rough it and go back to living in the same size house that your grandparents lived in, your family could probably be comfortably supported on just one part-time income instead of two full-time ones. Which brings us to the crux of the biscuit. Just how small is big enough?

According to the advocates of the Tiny House, 100 square feet is adequate, 400 square feet is roomy, and 800 square feet is a down right mansion. A quick visit to The Small House Society will show you that these minuscule mansions are not slap dash shacks, but beautiful architectural creations writ small. Or take a video tour of a 140 square foot house with PBS television station WQPT.

Perhaps the easiest way to go green is not to search for greener ways to consume as much as ever, but to scale down our so-called needs and live small. The ancient Chinese philosopher Lao Tse once said, "He who knows that enough is enough will always have enough."

--Gary Shannon
How-2 Review