3 ms·
The underlying problem here is that one of our numbers must be wrong. The options I could see are 1. The marginal cost of housing has little to do with what i
by lumost 6y ago
The underlying problem here is that one of our numbers must be wrong. The options I could see are
1. The marginal cost of housing has little to do with what individuals pay in the short-term.
2. The median income earner requires or will require substantial subsidies or raises to keep pace with the increased costs of their home. Roughly 3-4% per year assuming that housing is the only item inflating.
3. Either the median income, median rental, or tv+internet prices we've quoted are wildly off the mark.
I'd bet that #2 is the correct interpretation of the statistics. While option 1 is possible, it hides low-quality substitutions and assumes that one can always make a substitution such as living with parents for longer.
- tharkun__ 6y agoAll very fair points. I think one thing that makes a huge difference is whether you rent or own. There's obviously so many nuances to this all. I realize that we (or at least I am) also mixing up various things, even though I chose to quote a particular city's median income for the example. If you are renting and your rent goes up 10% that obviously has a large effect. If you have a house and rent goes up 10% you don't care at all. If rent goes up like that, it's probable that house/condo sale prices go up too and you have to pay more in taxes. I bet the increase in taxes makes a smaller hole in your pocket, though I might be completely wrong. But this also depends on whether we stick with the example or move on to other countries, where there's no such thing as separate municipal/school taxes or where rent control is in place.