This study makes 2 assumptions that seem suspect to me: 1. It's unaffordable to spend more than 30% of your income on rent + utilities. Perhaps ironically I t

This study makes 2 assumptions that seem suspect to me: 1. It's unaffordable to spend more than 30% of your income on rent + utilities. Perhaps ironically I think this rule is the least true in areas with highly priced housing markets- if you're paying 40% of your post-tax income on housing, that leaves a ton of room to spend money on other things. I realize this isn't necessary true for people making minimum wage, but I wish they did a more analysis that for that. Instead they just used the ancient 30% rule of thumb. 2. You can only afford to live somewhere if 40% of the 2 bedroom homes are within your budget I'm definitely not an economist or housing expert, but it seems unintuitive to me that we'd ever reach an equilibrum where the lowest earners can afford to the majority of homes. If everyone can afford most housing, wouldn't landlords just raise prices on luxury or above-average properties until only people who make more than average can afford them? Two-income households also have an inherent advantage if there's any sort of bidding war.