Spain housing: €50k price in 1994 vs €375k today

The flat that cost €50,000 and now sells for €375,000

A user in the debate states that a four-bedroom home built three decades ago was purchased for €50,000. Adjusting for inflation, that amount would equal approximately €100,000 today. The same property, now thirty years older, is listed at €375,000. The gap between these figures—a difference of €275,000—is central to an issue currently summarized by a sarcastic phrase circulating online: young people don't have homes because they spend their money on Netflix. Critics argue this joke serves as an excuse to avoid looking at the actual numbers.

What housing cost 30 years ago

Comparing prices across different eras is tricky. Some recall that in the mid-1990s, an apartment in a working-class neighborhood of a medium-sized city cost between eight and twelve million pesetas, equivalent to €48,000–€72,000. Others cite higher figures: one user notes a second-hand detached house in Getafe's Sector 3, among the cheapest areas, sold for 30 million pesetas (about €180,000 at the time). Another describes buying a 100-square-meter duplex penthouse in Barcelona's Gràcia district, without an elevator and needing renovation, for €100,000.

None of these figures deny the subsequent surge. That same Gràcia penthouse is valued today by its owner at €450,000–€500,000. The Getafe house is listed at €460,000, a 155% increase from its original price according to the same user. A duplex in the center of a Levantine city bought for €60,000 in 2002 receives offers of €300,000, per another participant. The question threading through the discussion isn't whether housing prices rose—obviously they did—but whether wages kept pace. Many argue they did not.

Calculations debunking the Netflix myth

A calculation circulating in the debate quantifies the disparity. In 1985, the price per square meter was €326. By 2024, the average stands between €1,972 and €2,489, according to this estimate. Taking a median value of €2,230, the absolute increase is €1,904 per square meter. The percentage rise exceeds 580%. While this calculation doesn't adjust for inflation or wage growth, the magnitude of the imbalance is hard to dispute.

Many conclude simply: the financial effort required for housing today far exceeds that of previous decades. Buyers must tighten their belts for years, with no guarantee of success. The theory of superfluous spending—coffee, subscriptions, travel—collapses when critics show that eliminating all such expenses still leaves savings insufficient for a down payment.

What young people spent back then (and didn't)

Nostalgia has poor memory. Thirty years ago, there were no low-cost flights to London from provincial airports, no mass weekend getaways, and no consumer leisure deemed mandatory today, recalls one participant. It is also true that past leisure was paid for at the bar: a round of vermouth with friends cost what would be €40 today, and no one considered it extravagant, argues another.

The most repeated counterargument is that a single salary once covered a house, car, and family. Today, with one income, people aged thirty-five either live with parents or share apartments, say several participants. Having a mortgage, car, and family requires incomes unreachable for most in Madrid or Barcelona, they assert. Comparing generations isn't complaining; it's an arithmetic observation.

From middle class to lower class in one generation

A thesis gaining traction in the analysis suggests that what was called the middle class in the 1960s through 1990s—skilled workers owning homes—has become the lower class, especially for those born after 1998, argues one participant. This isn't subjective perception, he adds: it results from average wages growing far below housing prices over three decades.

The phenomenon has multiple causes listed in the debate without consensus: hyper-regulation of land, rising construction costs, lack of generational succession in the sector, conversion of homes into tourist accommodation, massive foreign fund purchases, and near-disappearance of public housing. Each factor contributes. None alone explains the outcome.

The SAREB case and housing that was affordable

Not everything is lamentation. One user recounts buying a SAREB (Spanish asset management company) property for €60,000, tax-exempt for being under thirty, fully financed after chaining temporary contracts, with a monthly mortgage of €170 over forty years. The case exists. However, it involved very specific conditions—public entity housing, tax exemption, full financing—not available to everyone.

This anecdote reminds us the market has cracks where opportunities slip through. But it also highlights that these cracks are exceptions, not the norm. The general rule remains: prices rise yearly, wages do not, and the down payment recedes while one tries to save for it.

The problem not solved by blaming Netflix

The housing debate has a generational component poisoning any analysis. Older generations accuse youth of wastefulness; youth accuse elders of buying cheaply and living off rents. Both have partial truth; neither has the whole story. The result is a deadlock preventing discussion of what matters: supply, demand, and game rules.

Meanwhile, the gap persists. The four-bedroom flat that cost €50,000 thirty years ago now sells for €375,000. Inflation accounts for €100,000 of that. The remaining €275,000 is explained by no one. Not Netflix, not iPhones, not travel. Only the market, operating under rules no one challenges because doing so requires giving something up.