4 ms·
These are all secondary factors. Meanwhile you're ignoring the most important primary factor you should be looking at - the change in what is called "cost burd
by racional 3y ago
These are all secondary factors. Meanwhile you're ignoring the most important primary factor you should be looking at - the change in what is called "cost burden", that is, the portion of one's income required to satisfy a mortgage (and pay brokers' fees up front). There's also the widening inequality gap (quite pronounced since 1965), meaning you should be looking at medians and percentiles, not averages. And this thing known the rental market, which you're not looking at all.
So no, it's not just a bunch of people complaining for the sake of complaining.
- RestlessMind 3y ago> There's also the widening inequality gap (quite pronounced since 1965), meaning you should be looking at medians, not averages. Homeownership rate being 66% means median household owns its home. I don't know how averages are related here. > And this thing the rental market, which you're not looking at all. I am talking about homeownership rate and data. Why is rental market relevant here?
- racional 3y agoI don't know how averages are related here. Me neither. You're the one who brought them up. Why is rental market relevant here? Because it's what many people mean when the talk about housing affordability. Especially, you know - regular working people.
- RestlessMind 3y ago> You're the one who brought them up. I only referred to the average of homeownership rate over the decades. So inequality is still irrelevant there. > Because it's what many people mean when the talk about housing affordability. Given the homeownership rate is 66% and has been around that number for many decades, I am sure a lot of "regular working people" are homeowners. Unless you think that segment is a minority of the society, in which case they should not be called "regular".