4 ms·
> The numbers here are not adjusted for inflation, but there is no straightforward way to do so This is extremely important because the value of 200k from 2002
by irjustin 4y ago
> The numbers here are not adjusted for inflation, but there is no straightforward way to do so
This is extremely important because the value of 200k from 2002 is quite different than today.
I get it'll never be near perfect, but I really wish they attempted some method and simply stated it instead of ignoring it. The counter example is go back to 1940's and we're all screaming what happened to the 5,000 starter home?!
I want to believe the conclusions of this piece, but in a way, it's manipulating data to fit the hypothesis.
- imtringued 4y agoThey could have divided the house price by the median wage. Then you could denominate the effort it takes to pay off a home in years of work.
- KirillPanov 4y agoActually more than median what you need is binning -- how many years for the 10th percentile income to pay off the 10th percentile house, and so on for each 10% band. For each year. That would be some really interesting data. I bet the effect is quite nonuniform.
- rich_sasha 4y agoAdditionally, normalising to 100% obscures the overall number of houses being built / available. A dropping percentage could still mean a net increase, perhaps even relative to population growth. The argument may well be correct, but the data as presented can't reliably support it.
- dave333 4y agoThey should quote the house prices as % of median house price that year.