You can’t judge a house solely by its age. Unlike people, houses can be modernized, updated, and refurbished because they are less integrated than humans. Replacement furnaces are easier to install than human hearts and come with a longer warranty. Failed plumbing systems at home have complete, routine remedies while our personal systems often require extensive monitoring of their imperfect performance.

Data on the condition of houses is not as readily available as buyers would like. Most often we can discover the age of a structure, but we know little beyond that in most cases. It takes a professional inspector to tell us about the condition of the beams and the boards, the furnace and the fireplace, the garbage disposal and the garage doors.

As home buyers, however, we think of prospective properties in terms of their age. We base much on our prejudices of construction techniques and materials of today compared to yesterday.

“Oh, them old doors were real wood, not some cheap compost veneer.”

“Lordy, today’s kitchen will make your breakfast coffee, eggs, and toast before you can get down the stairs and to the table.”

Nationally, 48% of houses were built before 1980. That means nearly half went up more than 46 years ago, in a time before the cell phone or the WNBA.

Houses in Indiana rank 18th oldest among the states, with 52% built before 1980. That’s just ahead of Maine and right behind West Virginia. Illinois, Ohio, and Michigan are all even older than we are; only Kentucky, at 45% built before 1980, ranks younger among our neighbors

Now this can be a tribute to homebuilders and the suppliers of materials that go into homes. It also might be a compliment to home owners and renters who take care of property so that our residential infrastructure is well maintained.

But that is not what we see often as we drive our city streets and county roads. Maybe our eyes pick out the rundown porches, the unpainted boards, the broken windows of still occupied dwellings. And we label them as Old Houses because, in contrast, that really Old House across the way is so attractive with fresh paint, an intact roof, and flowers coming back for another burst of springtime. Certainly, that can’t be really old.

Within Indiana, 79.6% of occupied housing was built before 1980 in Benton County. Right behind are Wayne, Cass, Randolph, Fayette, and Henry counties, all with more than 75% of their housing structures built before 1980.

The newest housing is found (surprise!) in five counties adjacent to Indianapolis (Marion County). Only 18% of the occupied housing in Hamilton County was built before 1980. That is followed by Hendricks at 27%, then trailed by Johnson, Boone, and Hancock, each from 35% to 39%.

To me, age is not the crucial housing factor. It’s the volume of the neighbors’ music players and brightness of their exterior lights after sundown. A house is only as good as the people living in it allow it to be. Even the home inspector gathers no data on those factors.

Marcus is a research economist formerly with the Kelley School of Business at IU. Contact him at mortonjmarcus@gmail.com. Send comments to editorial@therepublic.com.

From: Danny K. Johnson

1SG U.S. Army (Ret.)

Columbus

There is a lesson from history that we ignore at our own risk, to continue on Mr. Don Strietelmeier’s thoughts.

In the years leading up to World War II, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain believed peace could be preserved through concession and negotiation with an aggressive regime. History has judged that approach harshly. Appeasement did not prevent conflict—it encouraged it.

Over the past 47 years, we have seen a similar pattern in how the world has dealt with Iran.

Since 1979, Iran has been linked to or accused of supporting terrorist activity across the globe—from attacks and assassinations in Europe to support of proxy forces in the Middle East. These are not isolated incidents, but part of a consistent pattern.

Yet the response from much of the international community has often been hesitation, negotiation without enforcement, or a quiet “not our war” attitude.

Iran rarely carries out attacks directly, instead relying on proxy groups to do its work. Examples include Hezbollah’s bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, which killed 241 American service members, and the Khobar Towers attack in Saudi Arabia. It is estimated that between 800 and 1,000 Americans have lost their lives due to Iran-backed actions, including many killed by Iranian-supplied IEDs during the Global War on Terror. Our NATO allies have also suffered, with civilians killed in attacks such as nightclub bombings in Berlin and assaults on newspapers in Paris. The list goes on.

World War I began with a single assassination, and World War II began with a single act of aggression, proving how quickly conflict can escalate when warning signs are ignored. History reminds us how small events can trigger massive consequences.

History shows that when nations treat growing threats as someone else’s problem, those threats rarely stay contained. They grow, spread, and eventually demand a far greater price.

Appeasement is not just about avoiding conflict—it can enable it. When there are no clear consequences, aggressive behavior continues.

This is not an argument against diplomacy, but against relying on it alone while ignoring repeated patterns.

As a retired member of the United States military, I believe strength, accountability, and unity among allies—not wishful thinking—are what prevent larger conflicts.

If we fail to recognize that, we risk repeating the mistakes of the past.

Frustrated legislators tucked an unusual provision into the recently passed $839 billion defense appropriations bill, demanding answers from the Pentagon on its proposed “Golden Dome” missile defense project. Defense officials were given until early April to detail planned expenditures over the next two years and must report annually thereafter.

If White House officials want this program to succeed, they shouldn’t just accept the need for greater transparency; they should embrace it.

Currently, the administration risks becoming a victim of its own hype. Since announcing the program in May, the president has boasted that it will shield all of the U.S. from enemy missiles, for less than $200 billion, within three years. Pentagon officials insist the technology and the timeline are viable, but they have declared they can’t say more for fear of leaks. The lack of detail has angered lawmakers and strengthened critics, who warn that building a comprehensive space-based shield against incoming ballistic missiles would cost orders of magnitude more than the White House says, even if technological hurdles could be overcome.

The reality may well be more modest and less controversial. The U.S. confronts a range of new threats — not just the nuclear-armed intercontinental ballistic missiles familiar from the Cold War, but conventional long-range and cruise missiles, hypersonic glide vehicles, and all manner of attack drones. Ramping up production of existing missile defenses, layering them and integrating them with new battle-management systems to protect key areas could be worthwhile. So could investments in space-based sensors and research into new interceptors, which might yield useful insights even if they’re ultimately not deployed.

If that’s the plan, however, Congress deserves to know. Appropriators, who allocated nearly $25 billion to Golden Dome in last year’s reconciliation bill, have rightly complained that they can’t “effectively assess resources available” or “conduct oversight of planned programs and projects” without more information. To justify new funding, not to mention build support so the program isn’t scrapped by the next administration, the Pentagon needs to do more to convince members of both parties of its feasibility and worth.

Others are owed clarity as well. While the Pentagon recently laid out in broad terms how it hopes to spend the money from last year’s reconciliation bill, most details remain classified. American taxpayers deserve more information if they’re going to continue to provide billions to fund the program. Defense companies have been clamoring for more specifics and long-term contracts: They can’t be expected to invest huge sums in developing new products, or even scale up production of existing technologies such as air defense systems, without a better sense of the commercial potential.

Allies have advanced capabilities they could bring to bear if included in the discussions. And if the president is convinced the U.S. needs greater access to friendly territory such as Greenland to make the system work, he needs to explain why.

Concerns about revealing too much are understandable. But the U.S. has been more open about past defense initiatives — including former President Ronald Reagan’s aborted “Star Wars” program — without undermining operational security. Indeed, the U.S. could dangle the possibility of discussing Golden Dome in more detail with China and Russia as part of talks over their nuclear arsenals and investments in worrying new weapons.

Undue secrecy over the program risks raising both expectations and fears unnecessarily. The White House should welcome this opportunity to lower both.

Dear Eric: I have two sisters. “Betty” and I had a serious falling out a few years ago. She won’t speak to me. She has cast herself as the victim in a situation where my other sister’s husband became abusive to me. My heart is broken. Betty and I were very close all our lives before that happened.

Betty has two sons. She is estranged from one. The other, “Allen,” has a child named “Rita.” I live in a state far away from Betty, Allen and Rita. I haven’t seen Rita since she was about two years old. She won’t remember me, but I have been sending her birthday cards every year.

Rita turns 10 years old in a few weeks and I’m wondering if I should stop sending her cards. She is getting old enough to wonder who this is. I don’t know if Allen knows about the rift between his mother and me or, if he does, if he has explained anything to Rita.

Do you think I should continue to send this child birthday cards? I don’t want to upset her, her father or her grandmother. I might never see any of them again because I would not be welcomed by my sister. I guess I really don’t mind backing out of their lives altogether to keep the peace, but I also don’t want to shine a light on the problem by stopping the cards if by chance Allen does not know about the situation. I’m confused about the right path to take. What are your thoughts, please?

– Invisible Aunt

Dear Aunt: I don’t think a conversation with Allen is out of bounds here. You and he and your sister are all adults and, as such, able to navigate having separate relationships. He may wish to set a boundary with you in order to keep the peace with his mother. But it’s better to find that out directly, rather than to assume.

Even though you don’t know Rita, you’ve extended your generosity and love to this family through these cards for nearly a decade. So, there is already a relationship. This isn’t to say that they owe you anything, nor you them. But some of the confusion you’re feeling may stem from the one-sidedness of the relationship. It’s fine to get an understanding of the other side.

You can practice discretion when talking about the fractured relationship with Allen’s mother, if you’d like. It’s probably best not to get too deep into the specifics, anyway, just because they’d distract from the true focus of your conversation. But this story is yours, too. You don’t have to hide it. If it would be meaningful to you to continue to reach out to Rita, tell Allen that and ask if it would be meaningful to him and his family, as well.

Dear Eric: I would love your input. My stepson has cut his dad out of his life because he will “only” inherit $1 million dollars when his dad passes. My stepson makes almost $500,000 a year. And he is upset that his dad will donate money to me and our local hospitals. What do you think?

– Curious Stepmother

Dear Stepmother: It’s likely that there is something else underneath this conflict between your husband and his son. Sure, it could just be about the money, especially if the son had assumed he’d be receiving far more than a million dollars. But for him to take such a drastic action suggests there are other sources of frustration in this relationship. They may be justified; they may not. There’s probably a bit of both/and in this situation.

Your husband could try to have a “lay it on the table” conversation with his son. It’s possible that there’s resentment about the money going to you or to the charities. Your stepson may feel that it’s his entitlement. And even though he makes a very good living, he may have counted his chickens before they hatched, as it were. Or he may have grander plans that match the lifestyle in which he was raised. Those are all feelings or intentions he has to reconcile on his own, however. Your husband can do whatever he wants with the money.

This shouldn’t be a reason to dissolve a relationship, though. When it comes to inheritance, money talks but it mumbles sometimes. So, your husband would do well to clarify what his intentions are and what he hopes to accomplish with the money. He doesn’t need to justify himself to his son, but for the sake of the relationship he might want to open himself up to a conversation. It’s ultimately not about the money. Your stepson can make it about the money, of course. But there’s an opportunity to be clear with each other before it’s too late.

Send questions to R. Eric Thomas at eric@askingeric.com or P.O. Box 22474, Philadelphia, PA 19110. Follow him on Instagram and sign up for his weekly newsletter at rericthomas.com.