> No, I'm claiming it's not 1:1, which is what you said the first time. Also that it's not outrageously out of scale with the rest of the country (which pays le

> No, I'm claiming it's not 1:1, which is what you said the first time. Also that it's not outrageously out of scale with the rest of the country (which pays less rent but makes significantly less) or historical data (housing used to be cheaper, but only by about 30% over 50 years or thereabouts). You're being pretty dishonest in your replies here. I said multiple times throughout this thread that this trend is across the country. I used LA as a specific example. 1:2 is still bad. It's not really disputable that this is not a sustainable or liveable situation. > Other things (travel, entertainment) are much cheaper Good thing those are the things people need to live? You think someone paying $3k a month rent making $50k is super concerned about travel prices? You sound extraordinarily privileged and out of touch and I see nothing to be gained from continuing this conversation. >Your great great grandparents moved west in caravans for precisely the same reason: real estate was cheaper in the frontier! My great great grandparents were slaves or the children of slaves - and what a strange analogy. There is no "frontier" now and the government subsidized those moves and stole the land from the natives. You're wildly out of touch and uninformed.