3 ms·
I think they are saying you’d need $1.86 of today’s money spent on housing to be equivalent to $1 spent on housing in 99?
by kfarr 3y ago
I think they are saying you’d need $1.86 of today’s money spent on housing to be equivalent to $1 spent on housing in 99?
- quirino 3y agoI think the parent commenter understands this part, they're just saying they think the values are actually much higher
- cstejerean 3y agoThat's the hard to believe part, it would imply housing costs on average are only up by 86%, but that doesn't seem to be anywhere near accurate in at least large parts of the country (all the ones I looked at least when we considered moving).
- ls612 3y agoNot everywhere has had the same housing problems SF and NYC have had.
- quickthrower2 3y agoThat there exists a cheap house in a rural area doesn’t help most people who need a job. For them inflation is higher.
- ls612 3y agoPlenty of non-NYC/SF major metro areas (>1mm people) with far lower housing inflation than those cities. No need to be rural.
- eloisant 3y agoThis is true, but the question is not whether it helps or not but if the 86% increase is the right number or not. Yes inflation was higher in big cities.
- xboxnolifes 3y agoFar more than SF and NYC have had housing prices more than double over the last 20 years. Hell, doubling over that timeframe would barely be over 3% inflation.
- paulpauper 3y agobut maybe this is true if you factor in cheaper mortgages, lower rates . financing options were worse in 1999 vs 2019. Homes were very cheap in 1970 but way harder to get a good mortgage, too. much more was paid upfront.
- quickthrower2 3y agothis is the boomer retort. something Kirsty Allsopp might say for example. But: would you rather buy say a car for $100k interest free or $10k at 10% interest?