The median sales price to median HH income ratio has also nearly doubled in 40 years.

Though housing size keeps increasing, housing budget shares stay the same, and homeownership rates are higher than the 1980s.

www.voronoiapp.com/real-estate/...

It's not controversial to say this increase in homelessness is bad. And I often see people attribute it to housing costs.

And staying within that housing budget can mean: smaller dwellings, renting, fewer kids. And people HATE having an obvious budget constraint they struggle to change for what they percieve as not what they feel they should be getting.

Tl; dr people are consistent at staying within a housing budget accross time. However, what the budget can buy changes.

And seemingly, YIMBY reforms can get people mad about being in apartments into starter homes and people mad at being too far out a little closer to the urban core?

Alternatively, maybe we just eliminate the employer insurance firewall and let people shop on the ACA marketplace?

www.commonwealthfund.org/publications...

Richmond, VA has also been adding more BRT.

I'm not sure...like the purple line was an explicit project as that part of Maryland has gotten denser. And as cities build up, they also build up bus services.

Property values are high, but my point was mainly that city populations are rising again and you should remove barriers to building.

I assume there's also a sort of runaway affect here. If you allow density, infrastructure will be developed with the density in mind.

Also there has been a "return" to urban cores relative to the 1970s. Not getting in the way of that is good.

Real GDP per capita also rose in the 1970s.

It really seems like people just hate noticeable inflation. Real income changes be damned.

fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A939R...

Homeownership also rose throughout the 1970s. I think people just really hate nominal price increases and the interest rate increases that happen to address them.

fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RHORU...

I am learning the median first time homebuyer isnt 40, it's more like 36. And it's not that volatile.

Data issues, apparently. Ask @besttrousers.bsky.social

Issues polls also depend heavily ob phrasing and in-group nudges.

If someone's party decides it's against something, a voter in that party takes cues.

Non-alcoholic Blue Moons are among the best.

Lots of vibes, but it's at least bad that the median age for first time home buyers is 40.

But otherwise, I think it's all the "price on the can" theory that people don't like price go up even if they make more.

Flat subsidies vs progressive (more as you make less) are just about the same welfare debates we've had forever. Same with regulated vs unregulated markets.

The current debate seems to be centered around the ACA vs enhanced ACA vs "actually existing Heritage Foundation plan." Nothing new.

That's why networks are narrow, in my opinion. That's why HMOs dominate. That's why ACA prices increase more slowly than employer coverage in non-shock years. And it's also why markets with more insurers are cheaper.

It's competition by design.

The whole point of benchmarking is so that you choosing to buy better insurance or a larger network came entirely at YOUR COST. In contrast to employer insurance, which gives few options and subsidizes every additional dollar spent.