Lou wrote:

Assumption: Human "needs" do not change over time; only preferences
change over time.

Conclusion: People are now buying houses bigger than they need.

That sounds like a justification, even though it's couched in terms that
make it sound like a logical argument.

As a member of a seven person family who grew up in a small (under 1,000
square feet) house, in my experience the first assumption is flat out
wrong - we had what the family could afford, not what we "needed".

The second assumption is open to debate as well - when you see some
mummified human from a few millennia back with bad teeth, it seems obvious
that they needed modern dentistry way back then. But it's doubtful they
thought so, such a thing hadn't even been conceptualized.

It's almost trite. People don't worry about a lot about personal safety if
they're starving or dying of thirst. Satisfy those needs and they start
worrying about safety. Get that under control, and they start looking for
love (as opposed to sex). Once they find love, they concentrate on esteem,
and next comes self-actualization, the desire to be all you can be.

That's a classic description of the motivators of behavior for healthy human
beings. It's not obvious that this ascending order of needs ever tops out.
Historical experience would indicate that, as a society makes it possible
for people to satisfy their needs at one level, a whole new level manifests
itself.

The direct tie-in of all this to average house size is, if anything,
somewhat obscure. But the idea that human needs don't change, at least in
an operational sense, with time is certainly not the self-evident
proposition you imply.

I guess it all depends on how you define needs. To me needs are things
that must be satisfied for physical survival and basic happiness. To
you "needs" are what it is that people find themselves desiring at
whatever stage they are at in life. Certainly human physical needs
haven't changed in the last 10,000 years. I think its debateable
whether the fundamental "needs" for basic happiness have truly changed
in that period. I have met plenty of people in other countries who
showed every sign of being truly content and happy despite having fewer
material comforts and conveniences than a family living below the
poverty line here in the US. If people with very little in the way of
material possessions can be happy, that, to me at least, shows that
there is no fundamental link between possessions and happiness once
someone has basic shelter and protection from the elements.

By the way, you are absolutely right about evolving desires. As soon a
human satisfies his current set of desires a new set tends to pop up and
off he goes pursuing them. Having observed this process in myself and
others, and having read other's observations about this dynamic, I
presently believe that this dynamic is simply a habitual behavior of
fixating on and craving whatever it is that we see but don't have.

Some scientists are studying this process and there is a growing body of
evidence indicating that after a certain point of material comfort and
job satisfaction fulfilling material and career desires/goals does not
lead to greater happiness. There may be a point of diminishing returns
after which fulfilling new desires has little or no payback in terms of
happiness.

Andy