3 ms·
If it's meant to be an example, then it's wildly cherry-picked. Very few of the nation's homeowners live in NYC or SF. Even fewer home buyers are serious about
by nyeah 1y ago
If it's meant to be an example, then it's wildly cherry-picked. Very few of the nation's homeowners live in NYC or SF. Even fewer home buyers are serious about those markets. The exceptions are often in co-ops where down payment %s are much larger. It is not accurate, it's not even rational, to use those markets as reference points for a national discussion.
- littlexsparkee 1y agoOf course it is. If jobs are in major metros but it's impossible to buy there and hard to rent even as a tech worker - what does that mean for the city (and all the people that are locked out of opportunity)? A study from Hsieh and Moretti estimated that looser zoning rules in elite cities could increase GDP growth by a third. Everyone's looking to AI for productivity gains but this is major money on the floor that, while getting more discussion at present, is not part of a national policy, to everyone's detriment.
- nyeah 1y agoSure. I dig. Affordable would be better. I'm a little tired of conflating "major metro area" with SF and Manhattan, but I dig. I'd love to own a home in either of those places. It's a surreal thought but very appealing.