Davis 1

Steven Davis
Dr. Spielvogel
CAS 137H, Section 009
21 November 2015
How We Choose to Live
The idea of population dynamics is not an idea commonly and explicitly discussed,
however, it is one that affects everyone. For example, people often argue about the number of
students in a classroom, the number of kids a certain parent cares for, or even the long line at
the grocery store, which easily relates to population density. Population changes are very
common and often carry large repercussions. One topic easily relatable to everyone is
household size. Just a few generations ago, the average number of people living in a home was
over double what it is today. Since World War Two, the household size in the United has been in
steady decline, due to many cultural factors, thus presenting todays society with many negative
consequences.
To begin, consider the facts. The United States Census Bureau provides invaluable
statistics which easily prove that this decrease in the number of household members is
occurring. The Census Bureau reported that the average U.S. household size in 2013 was 3.3
members per household, and this value continued to decrease, landing at 2.54 members per
household in 2014 (Average Size of Households in the U.S. 1960-2014). In just over fifty years,
the size of every single household in the United States, on average, has decreased by one entire
person; this is a significant change. While it is clear that the average size did indeed shrink
considerably from the time after World War II until today, it is also vital to take into

Davis 2
consideration other related factors, notably the composition of households, the number of
households, and the physical size of homes.
Examining the composition of households is vital to understanding this paradigm shift. In
2013, the United States Census Bureaus report indicated that the number of two and one
person households has been on the rise. Today, thirty-four percent of U.S households consist of
two people, and twenty-eight consist only of one. In accordance with this change, the number
of family households, homes with children, has shrunk from fifty-six percent in 1970 to fortythree percent (Average Size of Households in the U.S. 1960-2014). Not only is the size of the
household changing, but so is the composition. The number of homes at the lower end of the
spectrum are increasing greatly in number.
Next, another adjunct factor to consider is the number of households. In 1960, there
were fifty-three million households in the United States. More than doubling in just fifty years,
this number reached one hundred twenty-three million in 2014 (Average Size of Households in
the U.S. 1960-2014). One might think this is not very important, as the number of households is
taken into account in the household size statistic. However, this massive volume increase
indicates that the change is happening much faster than it seems. Younger people are not only
creating new, smaller households, but traditional, larger households are splitting, too.
Finally, the last statistical factor to consider is the physical size of the U.S. home. As the
number of people in one residence declines, the size of the home is actually increasing. In 1950,
a newly constructed house was on average 983 square feet, dwarfed by the 2500 square foot
average new home in 2012. On its own, this change is clearly significant, but coupled with the

Davis 3
number of people living in each home, the area per person skyrocketed from 291 square feet per
person to 961, an over three-fold increase (Friedlander).
Its virtually indisputable. Since World War II, the number of people living in each
household of the United States has decreased, the composition has changed, the number of
homes has doubled, and the size of each home has nearly tripled. This revolution in American
housing has clearly permeated U.S. society, and well-monitored statistics easily show this
change. But, what caused this, and what does it mean?
A combination of cultural factors are at play here. Societal norms have changed, and
with looser social restrictions, people are able to leave their traditional homes. In addition to
looser restrictions, emerging desire for freedom contributes to the migration of millions of
people. Traditional family structures and their societal acceptance are evolving. Finally, the
changing of financial situations have allowed for the change in household size.
To begin, since World War Two, the basic assumptions, norms, and provisions of society
have changed, and a desire for personal freedom and privacy has taken over. Dr. Gil Troy
indicates that better transportation and looser social restrictions assisted in giving millions of
people the freedom to move away from home (Whipps). In a transportation sense, the
development of widespread and relatively cheap air travel after World War Two meant that
most anyone could relocate. The automobile industry also boomed, further making relocation a
possibility for many. Once confined only to their hometowns, where the logical option would be
to live with ones parents, people now have the ability to move away. Younger people are no
longer returning to their parents homes after college. Rather, with increased technology and
better transportation, they can seek employment anywhere in the world and start a new

Davis 4
household for themselves. Looser social restrictions included a heightened sense of individuality
and privacy. People as a whole have become more privacy-concerned in recent decades. It is
clear that privacy is important to people today; think of all the sensationalized news stories
about the NSA or about corporations selling customers information. A desire for more privacy
has led many people to make having a separate home a priority. In 1940, fourteen percent of
households included a non-relative resident. With increased emphasis on privacy, this number
reduced to three percent just by 1975, and continues to shrink (Cohen). A smaller home is a
logical consequence of societys demand for a more private life. Having fewer people residing in
ones personal space results in this decreasing statistic. Both transportation improvements and
changing societal attitudes certainly are not coming to a halt. Today, in 2015, the United States
is experiencing a transportation revolution. Efficient, electric cars are gaining traction, and the
future appears to be one dominated by autonomous vehicles. Gender revolutions and the
heightened acceptance of once stigmatized individuals is making the United States an even freer
place. Will these factors further contribute to a smaller household? Only time will tell.
Tying into the privacy demanded by individuality, this individuality has been enabled by
technological expansions. Specifically, large supermarkets, lawn care services, house cleaners,
and improved/larger refrigeration, coupled with many similar changes and improvements have
decreased the need to rely on one family member to get food every day or complete similar
tasks. Traditionally, a family unit relied on one family member to complete all of these tasks,
stereotypically and historically the housewife. In the 1950s, a wife would cook, clean, etc.
However, in modern society, a family doesnt necessarily need to have a dedicated person to
take care of the home and the family. Without this requirement for a home, the household size

Davis 5
was able to decrease. Similarly, society has seen massive changes in marriage. Many, many
people are putting off their marriages until later in life. It is now more socially acceptable to be
married in ones late twenties or early thirties than it was to be married right out of high school
or college, as it was so common sixty years ago. Statistically, the age at which Americans
typically marry rose from 20.8 for women and 23.2 for men in 1970 to 25.3 and 27.1 in 2003
(Armas). This postponement of marriage could be prompted by the empowerment of women.
More women are seeking careers, putting professional development ahead of familial
development. Furthermore, women, and men, are becoming more independent. It is no longer
a societal norm to have to have a significant other. While most people still pair up, many choose
to live single. With more single homeowners or renters, the household size naturally decreases.
It is expected in the future for this trend of marriage postponement to continue. This
continuation will undoubtedly continue to have ramifications related to the shift in the average
household size.
Changes in familial structure during this time period definitely affect the shift in the
number of residents per household. Since the Second World War, traditional family structures
have broken down. One of the greatest decreases is that of multi-generational households.
Rarely are three generations represented in a household today. This aspect also has social
financial implications. As discussed, privacy is a big concern with so many people living in a
home, especially with such a gap of age and ideology. Children used to take in their elderly
parents and take care of them in their own homes. Now, care for parents is paid for, as they are
professionally taken care of or moved into a retirement home. Also, social security and
retirement investments allow elderly citizens to keep their old home and live independently.

Davis 6
With improvements in health and medicine, older people live longer, and their household
remains at one or two members for a longer period of time, decreasing the average.
An increase in divorce has also affected the traditional marriage model. More than 50%
of couples will divorce over the course of a marriage, and while some get remarried, divorce
splits a household into two, decreasing the size of a home by half and the volume by one.
Societal acceptance of divorce has allowed this shift to occur. Decades ago, divorce could lead
to exclusion in a family. Now, it is more seen as a solution to a failed partnership and is not
nearly as stigmatized. Similarly, a rise in the number of single parents contributes to the smaller
household size. In 2012, twenty-eight percent of children in the U.S. lived with a single parent,
as opposed to the traditional two parent, multiple children model (Paddock). Deviating from the
two parent norm, todays society is more acceptant of single parents, and they are more
prevalent. Social services are available to assist a single parent household, which normally
consists of very few members.
One most significant familial factors is the number of children per home. In 1970,
twenty-one percent of households consisted of five or more members, often two parents and
multiple children. Since, this number has shrunk to only ten percent (Grier). Couples are
choosing to have fewer kids; the geometry of the household is changing and decreasing the
household size. Why are people having fewer kids? This is a cultural and financial phenomenon.
Thomas Coleman, executive director of Unmarried America says that societal pressures to
marry before having children have decreased (Cohen). Culturally, people are putting more
time, effort, and money into raising their children. They want them to have the best things and
plenty of attention. This varies greatly with the old view of having multiple children and the idea

Davis 7
that a big family is an ideal family. Today, parents want a closer relationship with their children
and choose to have fewer to accomplish this in their busy lives. Also the rising costs of raising a
child and the expected cost of a college education make it financially unviable for parents to
have many kids, further contributing to this change.
Lastly, financial factors play a huge role in the decrease in the average US household size.
With greater wealth, Americans have the ability to indulge. As indicated before, the size of the
physical home has increased. People are using money to build larger homes, rather than
support more family members (Friedlander). This choice speaks also for the materialism and
emphasis on belongings in todays society, a paradigm shift in of itself. While it is not necessarily
a bad thing to have few or no children, this shift could be a result of selfish desires. In addition
to larger homes, people can now afford divorce. Often, marriage was financially necessary;
people paired up to share income/ability and to raise a family as a unit. Breaking the family into
two would have been a financial crisis. Today, with wealthier Americans and more workers,
people can afford divorce, and divorce decreases the household size. People can also afford to
move out of their original homes before marriage. Often, people would live with several
roommates or with their parents until engagement or a wedding. Today, with the
postponement of marriage and increase in wealth, this is no longer the case.
There are many factors that contribute to societys shift toward a smaller household.
Several societal attitudes, familial changes, and financial factors answer the question of why this
is occurring, but why does it matter? This decrease in household size, resulting in an increase in
the number of homes and paired with an increase in the physical size of homes has many
implications on todays society. This shift raises environmental and sustainability issues.

Davis 8
With fewer people living in each home, more resources are needed to support a healthy
population. Usage of all these resources obviously puts a strain on the environment. In reaction
to an expected global increase of 800 million households, Atlantic Cities states, Thats also 800
million more refrigerators and ovens and climate-control systems, 800 million more homes that
need roads and sewage hookups and access to a power grid. If every one of those homes were
the size of the average American home circa 2002, the researchers calculate that would mean
constructing about 72,000 square miles of new housing on the planet (Friedlander). The
construction of new homes has negative environmental implications. Usage of materials and
long distance transportation creates harmful emissions for the environment. Animals and their
habitats are being destroyed as new homes are being build and forests are being destroyed.
Additionally, more homes compound the use of energy and the waste products created in
generation and maintenance. Cleary, personal freedom and social choice come at a huge
environmental price.
Another result of this paradigm shift is a sheer question of the Earths capacity. The
world simply isnt large enough to support an unbounded number of people. Daniel Altheimer
begs the United States to consider three options: rethink the cultural ideologies that lead to
small households, rethink the design of homes and how they work together, or use all of the
planets resources, leading to destruction (Friedlander). While significant overpopulation may
not be a concern at the present day, questions of whether the planet can support societys
unbounded needs are actively discussed. If society continues to grow at its current rate,
eventually, there will not be enough room or enough resources to support everyone. Ultimately,
the increase in population paired with the decrease in household size will force individuals to

Davis 9
rethink housing dynamics. Society is already seeing an increase in the incidence of green
housing designs to offset environmental impacts of new homes. Zero impact home and lifestyles
are becoming more ad more common. As society progresses into the future, peoples
materialistic and grandiose lifestyles will be called into question.
A decrease in the number of people living in each home is occurring at a global scale, but
when examined in the United States from World War Two until today, its cause and implications
are most profound. Changes in societys norms and expectations, deviations from traditional
familial structures, and financial factors all play a role in this decrease. The result of fewer
people living in larger homes despite a large increase in the number of homes is a current and
expanding stress on the planet. Environmentally, the planet is at risk due to societys current
lifestyle, and in the future, the Earth is slated to run out of the space to support everyone. The
long-range implications of overpopulation and household size will undoubtedly present issues to
future generations.

Davis 10
Works Cited
Armas, Genaro. "More in America Putting off Marriage." More in America Putting off Marriage.
Web. 14 Nov. 2015.
"Average Size of Households in the U.S. 1960-2014." Statista. 2014. Web. 5 Nov. 2015.
Cohen, Yehudi. "Shrinking Households." Penn State Secure Login:. Future Families, 1981. Web.
14 Nov. 2015.
Friedlander, David. "Why Household Size Matters." LifeEdited RSS. 18 Feb. 2014. Web. 5 Nov.
2015.
Grier, Peter. "Incredible Shrinking US Family ; Households with Five or More People Have Fallen
by Half since '70, While Singlehood Rises.: [ALL Edition]." ProQuest. ProQuest LLC, 2 Dec.
2004. Web. 14 Nov. 2015.
Paddock, Catharine. "US Households Shrinking, More Americans Living Alone." Medical News
Today. MediLexicon International, 28 Aug. 2013. Web. 22 Nov. 2015.
Whipps, Heather. "Census: U.S. Household Size Shrinking." Msnbc.com. LifeScience, 21 Sept.
2006. Web. 14 Nov. 2015.