Median income affords median priced house?
I saw this post recently on PI
http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/real ... 155764.asp
It basically says that a median earner need not always be able to afford a median priced house. What has been the trend historically? I'm sure The Tim would have something that he can present as an evidance
http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/real ... 155764.asp
It basically says that a median earner need not always be able to afford a median priced house. What has been the trend historically? I'm sure The Tim would have something that he can present as an evidance
Comments
http://seattlebubble.com/blog/2008/02/2 ... 1950-2007/
I've added it to the discussion at the PI blog.
- ET
So, under normal circumstances the guy earning exactly median should be able to afford a house in the bottom quartile (at worst) else the market is out of whack. In what you linked, they seem to move onto their general confusion or mistrust of supply/demand principal. But it's easy to see how if the median buyer cannot afford any home, eventually total percent of homeowners would decline from 2/3rds to less than 1/2. Those are the only two long-term options.
Yeah, if there were only a million homes in the country, then only the top 1% of families would be buying them, and they would probably have a median price of >= $10M.
That makes it really out of whack, however, that that homes have become more expensive and less affordable as wages have been stagnant and more marginal buyers have entered the market. With marginal buyers entering the market, to keep affordability constant, the median home price would have needed to go down.
Don't forget that a lot of new homes have been built (faster than population growth). If anything, the fundamentals dictate a future price for housing closer to median income than the long-term average.
Mack has stated repeatedly that the opinions of Bubble-bloggers are simply the useless musings of amateurs (and he would never ask a clown to fix his plumbing so why would he go outside the REIC for RE info). And yet he posts a question asking for data that has been heavily discussed here for the past two years.
He is not looking for actual discussion he is a simple troll.
I don't even think he's a troll. He seems good natured enough to me (honestly), just completely lacking in abstract thinking. He knows what he has seen, but once you begin a thought experiment (like asking what will happen when prices start declining in 2006) he's so lost that he goes back to what he knows.
At what point do The Tim's writings go from amateur musings to professional opinion? Do his past posts change retroactively?
sorry, Alan - there is a thousand posts in the forums requirement before you can question "The Tim"
I can't believe I had more posts than RCC just few short months ago. Sniff.
Well, you skipped out on the off-topic threads. I guess you might say you rode the wrong horse.
wait - you got credit for debating with Rob Roy? I call foul!!!