Conspiranoic? I'm just pointing out that (as solomatov summarises) that these things are complicated, and that saying that one simple comparison is wrong, and

Conspiranoic? I'm just pointing out that (as solomatov summarises) that these things are complicated, and that saying that one simple comparison is wrong, and another equally simple one is right does not work. One factor that I suspect solomatov was originally hinting at, is that back in the 1960s when house prices were low against incomes, interest rates were so high that the monthly payments, as a proportion of their income, were roughly the same as they are today. However, that ignores the fact that saving up $SALARY * 2.4 / 5 for a 20% deposit in 1960, wouldn't have taken as long as saving up $SALARY * 4.2 / 5 would today. That only considers the US national medians mentioned in the article. The really unaffordable places are even worse. The longer you need in order to reach the savings target you originally set, the more you are affected by house price increases adding even more time to that period. As you say, there are several reasons for the unaffordability of home ownership. My point is they are not all completely independent of each other and are even influenced by house prices themselves. None of this is conspiracy, just market behaviour.