Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by nostromo | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

nostromo

Housing nationwide isn't actually that expensive:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/USSTHPI

Remember: the Fed governs the entire US economy, not just San Francisco and Seattle like HN would prefer.

View on HN

I think that's the challenge. The CPI where people need/want to live is actually quite high.

California Urban Inflation http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Economics/Indicators/Infla...

You can see average inflation averages about 4% for LA, San Diego and San Francisco.

I believe the St Louis FRED also has these inflation numbers for West Coast Urban CPI which reflect similar rates.

The vast majority of people live in, and the vast majority of economic activity takes place in, major urban areas. So yeah, housing inflation is very relevant.

And all of those sales are included in the link I provided, which shows that housing has gone up 13% nationwide since the peak twelve years ago.

considering the fact that in all metro areas housing prices have almost doubled, I'm curious in which parts of the country the housing prices decreased by half to reach the 13% average increase

Washington DC has for one not doubled. I'm not sure you're statement is accurate.

Housing going up 13% means most homeowners made over 60% return on their money.

There are plenty of urban areas that haven't seen drastic increases in home prices.

Some have even seen a decrease. Chicago has just made it back to peak 2008 level:

https://www.trulia.com/real_estate/Chicago-Illinois/market-t...

Also keep in mind that housing prices in those areas are not forced up by oversupply of capital. Those areas have the highest demand for housing in the world, and draconian zoning laws that ensure supply will never be able to keep up. The Fed would have to be insane to set interest rates tailored to SF housing prices.

> Housing nationwide isn't actually that expensive:

Now I'm interested in seeing the current metric of home prices divided by median income. Hmm... once source is this.

https://www.longtermtrends.net/home-price-median-annual-inco...

Would be also interesting to see this as a heat map.

> Remember: the Fed governs the entire US economy, not just San Francisco and Seattle like HN would prefer.

Reports from the field, meaning friends with family in the rest of the country makes it sound like the Fed is doing even worse in those places.

Do you have this as a function of median income and commute time? (I.e. housing within 30 minutes of jobs paying x)?

Almost every time I see a decent non-remote job it's in an expensive city.

How do you define a "decent" job? If you're a nurse you can probably find a decent job most anywhere. If you're a software developer then your options may be more limited.

I'm 10-15 minutes outside of Raleigh. I have a 22-35 minute commute (depending on time of day and traffic). I bought a house for something like 300-350% of a junior dev's annual salary in 2013, and from what I can tell, could do the same today (both house prices and junior salaries have increased).

(Note: I am in Garner, which is a less affluent town, but hardly a bad place to live).

Thanks - appreciate the data point. I just bought a house for about 0.8x a mid-career dev's annual salary, but worked really hard to find it (I'll be about 1.2x once I get it finished and rethatched, which is part of why it was cheap)

But I work remote and it's a risk to leave the city - growing up in northern California the idea of owning a home without an enormous amount of debt (and thereby meaning I had to decide to maximize income whether it meant doing what I wanted) was foreign.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com