>I'm not saying it wasn't tough, but housing prices were much lower relative to incomes in the 50s and 60s, even in a place like San Francisco. What do you mea

>I'm not saying it wasn't tough, but housing prices were much lower relative to incomes in the 50s and 60s, even in a place like San Francisco. What do you mean even? San Francisco has to be in the top five in terms of growth in the value of property over that time period. There's no way incomes could keep up. But that's an outlier. Housing in the East Bay is very affordable. >Sure it did, but it's a lot worse today because traffic congestion has progressed to unprecedented levels. That's kind of an uneven thing. As I pointed out in another comment, the traffic in Southern California is better today than it was in the '70s. Texas has gotten the lion's share of the country's growth in recent years - I'm not surprised Houston is bad.