>>1895264I've been curious about the same, but I do think people who doubt it too much are making a mistake. I don't think it's "unsustainable" in the sense that there is some intrinsic reason that the suburban machine has to collapse. It's in respect to global competitiveness of American labor. The way the system is set up, home owners become a major constituency and want policies that keep their home prices up and their property taxes low. The cost of housing becomes crazy because it's the nest egg of the boomers, but at the same time local governments often compete over having the lowest property taxes they can (only relenting when public debt burdens force them to raise taxes, but even then many of them have limits on how much they can be raised annually, which is like a de facto rent control for homeowners). Add on to that that transportation is significantly oriented around cars, which are expensive for individuals and also become a locus of debt, and you have a high floor for basic costs of living.
This was affordable when America was the undisputed industrial hub of the world in the post-war period, but when Europe and Japan started catching up in the 70s America started shedding industry because its labor costs were not competitive. There isn't any intrinsic reason that America's labor has to be more expensive than Germany's or Japan's, it's because the way society is organized has a higher cost floor.
So America also becomes the consumer debt capital of the world, which is ironic because America's dollar still goes far so consumer goods still appear quite cheap for the average American. But what is expensive is everything else, the housing, the transport and of course healthcare costs. One of the only reasons some broke people can still get by amidst the high rents of NYC is because at least their transportation budget can be several hundred dollars cheaper.
