• MooseBoys@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      You’re right. This is just an example to illustrate the statistics involved. At this point it doesn’t seem like you’re continuing this debate in good faith.

      • Tb0n3@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        All I’m saying is it makes no sense. People keep buying houses which they couldn’t do if they were unaffordable. And it’s not just 1% that are using those houses. If those houses are bought by the 1% and rented to the 99% in order to pay the house off that means it is not unaffordable to the 99%.

        • MooseBoys@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          it is not unaffordable to the 99%

          You’re right, and that’s not what’s being claimed. It’s just saying that in 99% OF MARKETS, the median price exceeds the means of the median income. This isn’t really that surprising, actually. In a perfectly balanced market, you’d expect the median price to be exactly equal to the affordability of the median income, so about 50% of markets would be above this value, and 50% would be below it.

          It’s probably also true that a far greater percentage of markets are affordable if you look at median income vs 45th percentile home cost, or 55th percentile income vs median home cost.

          All this means is that if you make median income, you’ll probably need to buy a house that’s below median price.