>>I posted, to Joel, data from the FRB that shows that mortgage payments as a percentage of disposable income was at 6.46% last quarter.<<
this data shows that mortgage payments are a higher % of disposable income than in the past. how does that *prove* your point that housing prices have not outpaced wages over the last 30 years? ok, 20 years since that is the limit of the data you provided. i have to say that us=ing this data to support your premise appear absurd, let alone prove it.
this seems like it would indicate housing cost growth has outpaced disposable income. of course, one would need to factor out things like interest rates (i'll bet interest rates weren't 7% in the early 80s. this means that a lot more of that 4% went to interest and not equity. therefore, actual house prices grew faster than a first glance of the numbers would indicate. in fairness, more folks own homes and it is easier to take on debt and that needs to be factored in.
i'd like to hear your explanation how a larger disposable income burden *proves* wages went up more (wages per worker, NOT HOUSEHOLD) than the cost of comparable homes.
in lieu of a cogent explanation, the evidence you provided indicates you were wrong to call me wrong and claim you had *proof*. it surely doesn't prove that real individual income growth has outpaced the rise in the cost of comparable homes
first and foremost, averaging data from homes purchased over a 30 year time frame are not valid. you *must* look at marginal home sales. how much are folks paying *NOW*. a rolling 20-30 year average is of no use. none.
cite one source that says the average inflation adjusted single earner wage has outpaced the inflation adjusted purchase price of comparable homes over the last 20 to 30 years.
IF the data exists, it ought to be easy to find, shouldn't it?
btw, inflation adjusted male wages have dropped about 7% since 1977 and female wages have increased about 13% (2/99 census bureau).
mwhodges.home.att.net
i'll give you the benefit of the doubt if you can only prove that the inflation adjusted sales price of comparable homes has stayed flat since 1970, 1977 or 1980 - take your pick.
heck, i'd even let you take the same house. comparing a home x years old to a home x + 30 years isn't actually comparable. however, the strong anecdotal evidence tells me that allowing you to compare apples and oranges still won't result in *proof*.
should be easy to do if it has actually remained flat. should be impossible if you were wrong, though.
my dad's house has appreciate 35 times and it is 32 years older now - apples to oranges comparison. to be accurate, we ought to compare it to a house that is now the same age as that house was then with similar attributes.
but, i'm sure seattle is a statistical outlier, right? much of the country has depreciated massively in value to offset these types of gains in new york, the bay area, southern california, etc., right ;-)
aafter all, spending a higher percent of disposable income on mortgages *proves* real income is growing faster than the price of a house (i *really* look forward to your explaining this ;-)
some times common sense and anecdotal evidence can lead to the correct conclusions. especially when the anecdotal evidence indicates a total, thorough and utter route. |
