3 ms·

another interesting way to look at is to look at the other basic of life: transportation. can the average 25 year old in any given era afford to purchase their

another interesting way to look at is to look at the other basic of life: transportation. can the average 25 year old in any given era afford to purchase their own vehicle? It is arguably way more affordable to be able to own your own car now than it ever has been in the past.

bhupy 6y ago
This is another interesting data point. In 1997, it took 1,768 hours of work at the median wage to purchase a Dodge Caravan. In 2018, it took just 1,396 hours of work at the current median wage. In 1997, it took 1,565 hours of work at the median wage to purchase a Toyota Camry. In 2018, it took just 1,258 hours of work at the current median wage. Also, not only do you work fewer hours today than 20 years ago, the car you get is of higher quality / safety. https://twitter.com/jmhorp/status/1230516154281553920 https://twitter.com/jmhorp/status/1230516154281553920
- C1sc0cat 6y ago
  I don't think the average working week has declined in the last 20's years and a lot of salaried workers work unpaid over time now.
  - bhupy 6y ago
    An interesting hypothesis, but even that hasn't been observed to be true: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/AVHWPEUSA065NRUG https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/AVHWPEUSA065NRUG In the '90s, the increase in income was partially attributable to employees putting in more hours every year, whereas in the recent boom working hours per employee were effectively constant. So the in the 2010's, income growth wasn't just bigger, it was of higher quality -> https://twitter.com/Noahpinion/status/1308790402082766849 https://twitter.com/Noahpinion/status/1308790402082766849 Finally, the number of hours of the working week is irrelevant in the context of the "number of hours required to buy X" metric.
throwaway0a5e 6y ago
Your stats are basically gonna look the same as the housing map but they're gonna be skewed by four-ish factors. Vehicles are much more liquid than housing. You can't load freight trains full of land and ship them to an auction across the country where used land dealers buy them for resale. Since the 1950s many states have adopted laws (and some states have adopted, repealed and re-adopted) and practices with the effect of increasing the price point of the "minimum viable shitbox". The bottom of the market is just a ton higher in some states than others. It's like how you can't buy a mobile home in Manhatten but with cars. Used car dealers compete with exporters for cars. If Brazil (or wheverver) has an economic boom they remove used cars from the market in places like the US and Canada increasing cost. The qualities of a new car and the life-cycle of a car has changed dramatically since the 1950s whereas houses are fundamentally just land prices plus some (with the "some" being a reflection of developers saying "well if I'm gonna buy this expensive-ass land I might as well put an expensive-ass McMansion on it) Alternative (mostly public) transit options in various places has waxed and waned since the 1950s. So yes, you could use cars for your point of comparison but you'd basically get the same thing as with housing but with the added downside of more variables to control for any time you want to make a cross-time or cross-location comparison with the data.
- michaelt 6y ago
  > Your stats are basically gonna look the same as the housing map If I move to the big city, and I go from spending 30% of $50,000 on rent to spending 50% of $100,000 on rent that's going to look bad whatever measure of housing affordability you use. But after rent, I've got $50,000 left instead of $35,000 - so maybe I'll get a BMW instead of a Camry.
  - bhupy 6y ago
    The actual multipliers are a little more stark, unfortunately -> https://twitter.com/jmhorp/status/1221828310000271361 https://twitter.com/jmhorp/status/1221828310000271361
  - bradlys 6y ago
    But you’ll still not be able to afford a home because it’s $1mil+. You’ll be a renter for life - and not of a nice place either! I know because I’m living it. Including the BMW.

bhupy 6y ago

This is another interesting data point. In 1997, it took 1,768 hours of work at the median wage to purchase a Dodge Caravan. In 2018, it took just 1,396 hours of work at the current median wage. In 1997, it took 1,565 hours of work at the median wage to purchase a Toyota Camry. In 2018, it took just 1,258 hours of work at the current median wage. Also, not only do you work fewer hours today than 20 years ago, the car you get is of higher quality / safety. https://twitter.com/jmhorp/status/1230516154281553920 https://twitter.com/jmhorp/status/1230516154281553920

C1sc0cat 6y ago
I don't think the average working week has declined in the last 20's years and a lot of salaried workers work unpaid over time now.
- bhupy 6y ago
  An interesting hypothesis, but even that hasn't been observed to be true: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/AVHWPEUSA065NRUG https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/AVHWPEUSA065NRUG In the '90s, the increase in income was partially attributable to employees putting in more hours every year, whereas in the recent boom working hours per employee were effectively constant. So the in the 2010's, income growth wasn't just bigger, it was of higher quality -> https://twitter.com/Noahpinion/status/1308790402082766849 https://twitter.com/Noahpinion/status/1308790402082766849 Finally, the number of hours of the working week is irrelevant in the context of the "number of hours required to buy X" metric.

throwaway0a5e 6y ago

Your stats are basically gonna look the same as the housing map but they're gonna be skewed by four-ish factors. Vehicles are much more liquid than housing. You can't load freight trains full of land and ship them to an auction across the country where used land dealers buy them for resale. Since the 1950s many states have adopted laws (and some states have adopted, repealed and re-adopted) and practices with the effect of increasing the price point of the "minimum viable shitbox". The bottom of the market is just a ton higher in some states than others. It's like how you can't buy a mobile home in Manhatten but with cars. Used car dealers compete with exporters for cars. If Brazil (or wheverver) has an economic boom they remove used cars from the market in places like the US and Canada increasing cost. The qualities of a new car and the life-cycle of a car has changed dramatically since the 1950s whereas houses are fundamentally just land prices plus some (with the "some" being a reflection of developers saying "well if I'm gonna buy this expensive-ass land I might as well put an expensive-ass McMansion on it) Alternative (mostly public) transit options in various places has waxed and waned since the 1950s. So yes, you could use cars for your point of comparison but you'd basically get the same thing as with housing but with the added downside of more variables to control for any time you want to make a cross-time or cross-location comparison with the data.

michaelt 6y ago
> Your stats are basically gonna look the same as the housing map If I move to the big city, and I go from spending 30% of $50,000 on rent to spending 50% of $100,000 on rent that's going to look bad whatever measure of housing affordability you use. But after rent, I've got $50,000 left instead of $35,000 - so maybe I'll get a BMW instead of a Camry.
- bhupy 6y ago
  The actual multipliers are a little more stark, unfortunately -> https://twitter.com/jmhorp/status/1221828310000271361 https://twitter.com/jmhorp/status/1221828310000271361
- bradlys 6y ago
  But you’ll still not be able to afford a home because it’s $1mil+. You’ll be a renter for life - and not of a nice place either! I know because I’m living it. Including the BMW.