https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2018/02/09/the-economist-house-price-indices https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2018/02/09/the-econ... lets you p

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2018/02/09/the-economist-house-price-indices https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2018/02/09/the-econ... lets you play around with comparing house prices vs income and rents. In Australia (where I live) and Canada (where I'm from) house prices are more overvalued compared to rent than income (i.e., rents have increased slower than house prices). > Rents may be somewhat related to the incomes of the people who are renting in the area, but these people are not necessarily the average population. By definition renters must live in the are where they rent, and must work within commuting distance of where they rent (even if it's a very long commute). Landlords, however, can live anywhere, provided they have someone to manage their rented properties. E.g., my landlord lives in Singapore, but I pay my rent to a Melbourne based property management agency. But since I live (and work) in Melbourne my rent is set by the market rate in Melbourne, not the (much higher) rate in Singapore. Unfortunately for non-techies in SF, their rents have been pushed up massively due to the much higher tech salaries. But that only proves the strong correlation between rent and income. BTW, mortgage interest in not tax deductible in Australia. Somewhat crazily, however, rental losses on investment properties are tax deductible ("negative gearing").