People in the United States don’t realize how different giving to charitable organizations, (such as, churches, museums, symphony orchestras, etc.) is in the US, than charitable giving in other countries. I pose as no expert but I will try to describe some of the differences and how this originated.

Why is the United States different? Maybe because in the beginning the United States was formed on a basis that called for a limited government, as is described in the Constitution. The founders of the United States gave limited powers to the national government and most of the governmental responsivities were reserved for the states (originally there were 13 states, now there are 50). Although the national government has assumed additional powers, many rights remain with the 50 states.

Thus, the Constitution says there will be a separation of church and state and the people are vigilant to be certain the church and state are separate especially where money is involved. No church or church school receives any federal money. Since education has been required of all citizens from the beginning, the government does support public schools, but even this is largely carried out by real estate taxes on local property in the individual school district. For example, I pay taxes on my house to support the local elementary and high schools. The nearby church schools are not eligible for this support. Private colleges and universities are not eligible for government funds although the public universities receive most of their funding from the state where they are located.

How did this come about? There are a variety of reasons, some valid today and others not. First, at the adoption of the new government following the American Revolution, the people wanted to limit the national government to only protection and some monetary actions. The state governments were given the task of financing schools, building roads, courts, police, etc. Second, most cultural organizations were privately funded and managed. No government assistance was required or wanted. Because the only source of funds to the federal or state government was through taxation, people wanted to keep taxes low. People preferred to donate the funds for most conveniences, cultural and religious organizations themselves and keep the government out of it. Third, although the government was new, the colonial states had been in existence for over one hundred years and people through a capitalistic approach in trade, agriculture and commerce developed wealth to support charitable institutions. Thus, there has been a tradition of wealthy people supporting the churches and cultural institutions in their area. Names on museums, schools, etc, date back over 200 years.

The U.S. Government does not support any charities; the people do. How does this work? Very well! If the people do not support a cultural / religious institution, then it will dissolve. Since the people recognize this fact, the responsibility is theirs to fulfill. Because of this responsibility individuals become interested and participate in the activities of the institution. They become active financial supporters and give their time and talents. Because paid employees, like ministers, priests and executives understand the institution’s donation system, which includes their own financial support, they are more caring, energetic in planning activities and programs which lead to community involvement and add to the health of the organization. They work harder! Their livelihood depends on the support by the constituents and community.

Consider this interesting example. A small, Baptist college in Chicago was having financial problems in the early 1900’s. John D. Rockefeller, a very rich oil magnate, became interested in the school and provided millions of dollars for new buildings, an outstanding faculty, and a large endowment, etc. Today, that school is the World famous University of Chicago. Harvard University has an endowment of thirty BILLION dollars, all provided by alumni and friends. The Art Institute of Chicago regularly receives gifts and bequests of priceless art objects from estates of wealthy Chicagoans and art patrons around the World.

Houses Americans Live In

Americans look forward to living in their dream house and over 60 % of American families own their own house, apartment, etc. Young families will usually rent for a period of years but their usual objective is ownership. This may be a trait existing since early days of the United States when people came to the American shores for freedom and free land. This urge sparked the westward migration from the original colonies to the middle part of the US and finally to the West Coast. The desire for owning land seems to be part of our heritage. In the early days land was the objective, now it seems to be home ownership, whether a house, an apartment or a vacation home beside a stream or lake.

The gradual evolvement of the makeup of the dream home has changed over the years. In 1930 when I was growing up my family owned a typical house for a middle class family. A living room occupied the front of the house. Toward the back was a dining room and kitchen. Not typical but our house had a study or bedroom on the first floor also. Upstairs were three bedrooms and one bath. We also had a driveway and a one car garage.

In Chicago thousands of smaller houses were built on a lot 40 feet wide (forty feet facing the street and 80 to 120 feet extending to the rear). The floor plan consisted of a corridor running the length of the house with a living room, small dining room and kitchen on one side of the corridor. Two or three bedrooms and a bath occupied the other side. There was usually no second floor. These were called “Chicago bungalows” and were built for working class families. They were small but “their house” was their own! An alley in back of the house and a lot, gave access to the one car garage.

Following World War II the dominant use of the car and new prosperity, cities expanded new subdivisions for houses with larger lot sizes were built extensively. The typical dream house changed. Also with the Great Depression of the 1930’s behind, families expanded and three and four children were common.

As the mode of living changed so did the houses. Television screens occupied the dominant part of a room. Kitchen and washing machine appliances became commonplace. A typical kitchen had a refrigerator, stove, oven, dishwasher and a “a breakfast nook” for the family meals. The washing machine and clothes dryer were often rescued from the basement to a side part of the kitchen. All these changes in living required changes in the layout of the 1950–60’s house.

A “ranch” style house with an adequate outside play yard for the children was very popular. The house was on one floor, usually with a small basement, but the family’s living area was located on one level. The living room of the past was combined with the dining room. The kitchen was enlarged to accommodate an eating area for the family to eat regularly. The dining area was reserved for “company” dinners. The laundry was located in an alcove of the kitchen. Three or four bedrooms with two bathrooms were located in a wing away from the living area. A two car garage was reached by an open walkway called a “breezeway.” In more affluent families, a separate room called “the den” contained the TV, viewing sofa and chairs and usually a desk.

A working class family would occupy a “Cape Cod” type house with the typical living room, dining room, kitchen, laundry and one bedroom on the first floor and two bedrooms on a second floor. The center peaked roof gave the house its name and gable windows provided light to the second floor.

Recently a trend to a full two story house is prevalent. The desire for more space without consuming additional lot size makes a two story house desirable and practicable. These newer houses will have a full basement, larger family living rooms, and sufficient space on the second floor for bedrooms and additional baths. These houses are desired by wealthier families. Middle class families will opt for different architecture or room arrangement but the basic arrangement is that of the ranch style. One benefit of this arrangement is to facilitate the family activities while part of the family is cooking or watching television. Being together is the key wish.

With this prologue, let us examine the various factors involved in selecting a home. Size is an important consideration but other factors will influence or dictate the number of rooms, etc. Location, financing availability, neighborhoods, etc. are among these. A family moving from an apartment will feel they need at least three bedrooms, a sufficiently ample kitchen to enjoy eating most meals at the kitchen table, a dining and living or family room (combination living, den and TV room) and a two car garage. American families are larger than in many other countries.

Financing limitations are a significant controlling factor in house selection. The USA has pioneered many new and now accepted financing methods. Here is a little history. One hundred years ago banks only lent money for home purchase purposes for a very brief time period, such as six months or one year. The loan would be renewed and usually substantial payments on the principle would be required. This worked for wealthy people but not for the worker, rising executives and tradesmen. During the depression days in 1930–40, the Savings and Loan financial institutions introduced a new 20 year loan with monthly payments program. Monthly payments would provide for amortization of the loan at the end of 20 years. Of course the loan could be paid off at anytime. This program enabled many people to afford home ownership and with the US government endorsing the program in many cases, this monthly pay program has become standard in the United States and many parts of the World. In any home purchase a cash down payment is required. Twenty per cent of the purchase price was the standard for a number of years, but recently, with guarantees from the U.S. Government or private insurance companies lesser payments are common.

Buying and selling a house is an interesting process. Since the prospective buyer is often unfamiliar with the availability of houses in the area the buyer wishes to locate, they will contact a “real estate broker”. The broker will know of all the houses in all price ranges, in the neighborhood for sale. He or she will ascertain from the buyer their price range, family size and wishes for the “dream house” they are looking for. With this information, the broker accompanied by the buyers will visit a number of houses that meet the stated needs of the buyer. For this effort the agent will receive a commission usually 6 or 7 % of the sales price to be paid by the seller. Following much discussion, visits to houses and a little persuasion by the agent (they are interested in making a sale) a price with the seller is agreed upon.

The purchase of a house is usually the largest investment a family will make. Often they will live in the house for a number of years and then sell it to another family. As families mature, children are educated. They leave home and start their own families, owners will move to different housing to fit the needs of a smaller family. Also, Americans are very mobile and move to another city for employment opportunities, smaller retirement houses, etc. Studies indicate Americans move on average every seven years!

I should digress to discuss apartment living which for some people is a desirable choice over a house. In the city of Chicago most people will live in apartments as renters or owners. The reasons are universal: location, costs, transportation, cultural activities and flexibility. Apartments facing Lake Michigan are expensive, new apartments with modern features will rent at higher prices than older, sometimes “run down” units. This also is true the World over.

There are many factors entering into deciding where to locate, but American families make these decisions every day knowing a house purchase will be their largest investment. Usually, all are satisfied with their final decision.