I read this is surprisingly common especially with older couples. People like to have their own space and when you get older comfort is more important because your body isn't what it used to be. Snoring, keeping separate hours, stealing blankets, freezing feet, etc. It all adds up. People don't need to sleep all night together to be a couple or to have sex. If anything, its kinda weird we are expected to share a bed and a room with someone else.
I'll be honest, if I had this setup, I think my previous relationship would have lasted longer. Its not for every personality and attachment type, but I think its for many.
What's the better relationship? The one where they each have their own personal space and aren't resentful over being kept up with snoring? Or the couple that toughs it out because they're supposed to?
I also think the long-tail economics of capitalism is about shrinking worker entitlements to enrich capital holders. Not too long ago you'd have a house with a spare bedroom or two or three. Now you're huddling in a condo or apartment that's 1bd or two, if you have kids. So we romanticize having less because its easier than challenging the system.
While apartments have gotten smaller over the past decade (and I can't find anything on apartment sizes in decades past), only about 20% of Americans live in apartments, and houses are way bigger than they used to be.
> In 1950, the year Time magazine estimated that Levitt and Sons built one out of every eight houses in the United States, the average size of a newly built single-family home was 983 square feet — slightly smaller than a decade prior, when it was 1,177 square feet.
I bought a house from the 1950s and it was barely bigger than that average of 983 square feet you cite. It's not tiny; it's adequate for a couple and a kid.
> I also think the long-tail economics of capitalism is about shrinking worker entitlements to enrich capital holders. Not too long ago you'd have a house with a spare bedroom or two or three. Now you're huddling in a condo or apartment that's 1bd or two, if you have kids. So we romanticize having less because its easier than challenging the system.
This is unambiguously wrong. Average living space per person has roughly doubled in the last 40 years:
> I also think the long-tail economics of capitalism is about shrinking worker entitlements to enrich capital holders. Not too long ago you'd have a house with a spare bedroom or two or three. Now you're huddling in a condo or apartment that's 1bd or two, if you have kids. So we romanticize having less because its easier than challenging the system.
This is way too sweeping a statement on the very complicated housing market that's constructing a strawman (capitalism is a system, it doesn't have long-term goals like a person does.) In the past, most women would not work, so the demand for jobs was nearly half of what it became once women started entering the workforce. As automation became more effective and manufacturing jobs became less necessary, regional centers of production became unnecessary (when you don't need to ship your output you don't need to have a center of hard goods in different physical locations) and jobs began to be concentrated in cities and metros with lots of highly educated labor. In America in particular, new housing construction plummeted after the early '70s and so housing around job centers became very expensive. That and several other macro trends contributed to making job centers in the US expensive to live in. There's plenty of cheap land/housing in the US still if a job is not a factor.
Is that how English people in the old day live, sleep in separate room even after marriage?