3 ms·

> What's your excuse for the hundreds of places that aren't San Francisco but still have ridiculous ratios between income and housing prices? There aren't "hun

by bhupy 6y ago

> What's your excuse for the hundreds of places that aren't San Francisco but still have ridiculous ratios between income and housing prices? There aren't "hundreds" of places. Here's a list of metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) by population -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_statistical_areas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_statistic... In the top 10, only 3 have experienced a dramatic increase in income-to-home-price multiple -> https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/home-price-income-ratios https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/home-price-income-ratios Of those that have experienced a dramatic increase, the root causes are common: restrictive land use policy that prevents us from building more housing. One may call that "tunnel vision", but others may call that "systematically isolating root causes".

notacoward 6y ago
> In the top 10, only 3 Yet again why the arbitrary limitation? Your own source shows about a dozen areas going from the 5-8 band to the over-8 band since 1990. More than two dozen going from the 4-5 band or lower to the 5-8 band. When each multiple represents most of $100K. When the entire graph should ideally remain about the same color overall but is clearly getting worse. Buy hey, let's look only at the top 10 out of 392 and ignore the fifth of the population that's not in an MSA. That's totally the way to "systematically isolate root causes" ... so long as the root causes are the ones we find convenient. Otherwise not.
- bhupy 6y ago
  It's not arbitrary, I'm just sampling the most populous because that's typically where the increases have allegedly been the most dramatic. The intention behind choosing only the top 10 is to be as minimally charitable to my own point as possible. In the top 20 most populous MSAs, only 7 experienced a substantial multiplier increase. In the top 50, it's even less. The further down the list you go, the less likely there has been a dramatic increase in home-price-to-income ratio. There's a whole collection of "Fine, American cities" (https://twitter.com/jmhorp/status/1221828340656431105 https://twitter.com/jmhorp/status/1221828340656431105) where multipliers have either not increased, or decreased.

by bhupy 6y ago

notacoward 6y ago

> In the top 10, only 3 Yet again why the arbitrary limitation? Your own source shows about a dozen areas going from the 5-8 band to the over-8 band since 1990. More than two dozen going from the 4-5 band or lower to the 5-8 band. When each multiple represents most of $100K. When the entire graph should ideally remain about the same color overall but is clearly getting worse. Buy hey, let's look only at the top 10 out of 392 and ignore the fifth of the population that's not in an MSA. That's totally the way to "systematically isolate root causes" ... so long as the root causes are the ones we find convenient. Otherwise not.

bhupy 6y ago
It's not arbitrary, I'm just sampling the most populous because that's typically where the increases have allegedly been the most dramatic. The intention behind choosing only the top 10 is to be as minimally charitable to my own point as possible. In the top 20 most populous MSAs, only 7 experienced a substantial multiplier increase. In the top 50, it's even less. The further down the list you go, the less likely there has been a dramatic increase in home-price-to-income ratio. There's a whole collection of "Fine, American cities" (https://twitter.com/jmhorp/status/1221828340656431105 https://twitter.com/jmhorp/status/1221828340656431105) where multipliers have either not increased, or decreased.