Quote:
Originally Posted by CaramonLS
Well I see you pulled out pretty quickly and gave up the ghost after Resolute's post.
In future, if you wish to critique, try providing some supporting evidence (if you think my evidence in bunk, then please provide your own, instead of trying to shout it down like a 3 year old trying to get his mother to buy the Fruit Loops instead of the Wheaties). Saying the chart is "basically made up" is a complete pile of garbage and you know it.
Just because "you really don't think this is the case", doesn't make it true.
Now, you just look like a loon because housing prices are increasing at a faster rate than average salary.
|
I didn't "give up the ghost" but thanks. I'm just not running around doing research for you to try to prove your point. You posted a chart that was clearly wrong and used that to try to prove your point. Don't get upset because someone called you out on bad evidence.
You put up the chart and tried to base your point around that. If we know that the chart isn't accurate to begin with then that's that. I could poke all kinds of holes in your theory about housing/prices and wages:
A) The fact that housing has increased that much above wages doesn't actually mean anything. Were the wages too high leading up to your chart? Were the housing prices too low leading up to your chart? Was there a reason that housing was a hot commodity shortly after the chart begins? Its pretty basic economics.
B) Are the wage increases reflective of those buying homes? In other words, great the wages are based on the societal average....but not everyone is buying a house or has any intention. So you have to throw those people out of your data to begin with, otherwise its surely skewed down. Do we need to factor in the University students wages who tends bar on weekends while they get a degree?
C) Does the increase in housing actually reduce the affordability? Just because the increase in home prices out paces the growth in wages doesn't prove that point. You have to factor in the increased equity that many people had in the homes as a result of this growth, the baseline for wages before the increase and go from there. In other words if leading up to the boom people had mortgages for say twice their annual income and that number is now three times their income its not a big deal. The chart makes it seem like it is, but that's just the visual.
Bottom line your chart is flawed, virtually meaningless and a great example of hindsight bias. You wanted something to show that home prices had outpaced wage growth and you found it. Congratulations. In the meantime the actually useful information could tell an entirely different story; if you think that I'm going to waste my time searching that out for you though you have another thing coming.
Its not up to me to find the answers for you and I can still critique what you put forward. Just because you're wrong doesn't mean that I know what the answer is....I just know that there is no way that housing prices increased 100% of the time since 1996 as your graph implies.