4 ms·
I don't think that's a super useful number since if you're somewhere where it's easier to earn that amount, homes are likely gonna be more expensive. It would
by vikramkr 3y ago
I don't think that's a super useful number since if you're somewhere where it's easier to earn that amount, homes are likely gonna be more expensive.
It would be much more interesting to know how far short the median income falls of median income needed to afford a home in that same region the income is earned - I think that's more insightful for an overall picture of how affordable houses are and you could do region by region comparisons.
I would hypothesize that even though the median income might be above that threshold or close to it in some regions like Manhattan and parts of the bay, the affordability gap would actually be greater in a large number of those relatively higher income regions than relatively lower income regions elsewhere
- joe_the_user 3y agoIt's not a useful if you're prospective home buyer in a region but it's a reasonable illustration of how generally unaffordable housing has become.
- vikramkr 3y agoUnfortunately there's a really high risk of issues like Simpson's paradox when you average together distinct populations like this, meaning the combined statistic/insight could actually be showing the opposite of the experience you're likely to experience within each region. No home buyer isn't part of a region. Given that where you buy a home and where you live are very highly correlated, it's hard to tell if this is over or under stating the actual average experience. Your actual experience of housing affordability is regional not global. In this case my hypothesis is that this number is actually an underestimate of how unaffordable housing is, though for all we know it could be that some significant regions like rural regions are more affordable. There's no way to tell from this number alone.