3 ms·

Why do you post with a title that sets the narrative rather than asking a genuine question? Your graphs do not address affordability. Find data that shows hous

Why do you post with a title that sets the narrative rather than asking a genuine question? Your graphs do not address affordability. Find data that shows housing costs compared to percentage of average income for a given area. Subtract rental costs from the average income to determine loan affordability or even qualification, since loans see rental costs as an expense for calculating available income towards a mortgage. This data is highly variable depending on location. California as a whole may be fine -- how about it's most populous counties or cities? How much does the rural divide skew the numbers, if any? Why are the rates you've presented flat since the 1960s?

RestlessMind 2y ago
> Your graphs do not address affordability. If the homeownership rate is 66%, that means people are able to buy a home. That's how I define affordability. > This data is highly variable depending on location. California as a whole may be fine -- how about it's most populous counties or cities? How much does the rural divide skew the numbers, if any? California's rural population is <20% of the state[1], so that's not a big enough number to skew the results big way. E.g. an urban county like San Mateo has homeownership rate >60%[2] [1] https://dof.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/352/Forecasting/Demographics/Documents/Urban-Rural_Classification_and_2020_Urban_Area_Criteria_CA_SDC.pdf https://dof.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/352/Forecasting/... [2] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/HOWNRATEACS006081 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/HOWNRATEACS006081
- nullindividual 2y ago
  > If the homeownership rate is 66%, that means people are able to buy a home. That's how I define affordability. This speaks zero to affordability. Next time you start a thread, try not to frame it with your pre-determined conclusions.
  - RestlessMind 2y ago
    > This speaks zero to affordability. You haven't even clarified your definition yet.

RestlessMind 2y ago

> Your graphs do not address affordability. If the homeownership rate is 66%, that means people are able to buy a home. That's how I define affordability. > This data is highly variable depending on location. California as a whole may be fine -- how about it's most populous counties or cities? How much does the rural divide skew the numbers, if any? California's rural population is <20% of the state[1], so that's not a big enough number to skew the results big way. E.g. an urban county like San Mateo has homeownership rate >60%[2] [1] https://dof.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/352/Forecasting/Demographics/Documents/Urban-Rural_Classification_and_2020_Urban_Area_Criteria_CA_SDC.pdf https://dof.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/352/Forecasting/... [2] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/HOWNRATEACS006081 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/HOWNRATEACS006081

nullindividual 2y ago
> If the homeownership rate is 66%, that means people are able to buy a home. That's how I define affordability. This speaks zero to affordability. Next time you start a thread, try not to frame it with your pre-determined conclusions.
- RestlessMind 2y ago
  > This speaks zero to affordability. You haven't even clarified your definition yet.