Joe Fish
@sadbusdriver.bsky.social
PhD student doing urban econ and industrial organization at Duke. Former highest paid cashier in the Midwest; former RA at Eviction Lab; Macalester College. Not a real bus driver
same thing, but with 4 different base years. 2021 is the worst year for this exercise.
if you pick any other year, I think the most straightforward conclusion is "good wage gains but man does shelter inflation suck"
if you pick any other year, I think the most straightforward conclusion is "good wage gains but man does shelter inflation suck"
December 4, 2025 at 4:48 PM
same thing, but with 4 different base years. 2021 is the worst year for this exercise.
if you pick any other year, I think the most straightforward conclusion is "good wage gains but man does shelter inflation suck"
if you pick any other year, I think the most straightforward conclusion is "good wage gains but man does shelter inflation suck"
although, it also looks like they're using mean wages and not median wages, the former of which have grown slower since 2021
December 4, 2025 at 3:23 PM
although, it also looks like they're using mean wages and not median wages, the former of which have grown slower since 2021
this chart is a bit weird because it *really* matters which year you set as your baseline.
if you reindex to 2020 instead of 2021, you get that, with the exception of shelter, wages have kept pace with essentials.
if you reindex to 2020 instead of 2021, you get that, with the exception of shelter, wages have kept pace with essentials.
December 4, 2025 at 3:17 PM
this chart is a bit weird because it *really* matters which year you set as your baseline.
if you reindex to 2020 instead of 2021, you get that, with the exception of shelter, wages have kept pace with essentials.
if you reindex to 2020 instead of 2021, you get that, with the exception of shelter, wages have kept pace with essentials.
This is why people need to write down models.
1) It’s possible for a spot up zoning to be ~entirely capitalized into land values but still drive down price of apartment-eligible land via spillovers
2) it’s ~impossible for production to go down bc the increase in value comes from higher profits
1) It’s possible for a spot up zoning to be ~entirely capitalized into land values but still drive down price of apartment-eligible land via spillovers
2) it’s ~impossible for production to go down bc the increase in value comes from higher profits
December 3, 2025 at 8:39 PM
This is why people need to write down models.
1) It’s possible for a spot up zoning to be ~entirely capitalized into land values but still drive down price of apartment-eligible land via spillovers
2) it’s ~impossible for production to go down bc the increase in value comes from higher profits
1) It’s possible for a spot up zoning to be ~entirely capitalized into land values but still drive down price of apartment-eligible land via spillovers
2) it’s ~impossible for production to go down bc the increase in value comes from higher profits
For instance, geography classic, City as a Growth Machine
relies *super* heavily on a spatial equilibrium assumption tucked away in a footnote.
(the assumption here being that bc labor is perfectly mobile, local development is zero-sum; note also, no agglomeration effects are implicitly assumed)
relies *super* heavily on a spatial equilibrium assumption tucked away in a footnote.
(the assumption here being that bc labor is perfectly mobile, local development is zero-sum; note also, no agglomeration effects are implicitly assumed)
December 2, 2025 at 2:51 AM
For instance, geography classic, City as a Growth Machine
relies *super* heavily on a spatial equilibrium assumption tucked away in a footnote.
(the assumption here being that bc labor is perfectly mobile, local development is zero-sum; note also, no agglomeration effects are implicitly assumed)
relies *super* heavily on a spatial equilibrium assumption tucked away in a footnote.
(the assumption here being that bc labor is perfectly mobile, local development is zero-sum; note also, no agglomeration effects are implicitly assumed)
A cool paper I wish I had done argues a lot of these down zonings (broadly, increases in exclusionary zoning) happened in response to more Black people migrating to non-Southern cities.
www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10....
www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10....
December 1, 2025 at 5:45 PM
A cool paper I wish I had done argues a lot of these down zonings (broadly, increases in exclusionary zoning) happened in response to more Black people migrating to non-Southern cities.
www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10....
www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10....
The period from 2015 to 2025 has been the best decade in the past 50 years for large and broad-based income gains
This is even true if you zoom in on young households. To explain the expressed economic malaise, you either need to go Full Stancil or argue that something, eg housing, is super salient
This is even true if you zoom in on young households. To explain the expressed economic malaise, you either need to go Full Stancil or argue that something, eg housing, is super salient
December 1, 2025 at 4:03 PM
The period from 2015 to 2025 has been the best decade in the past 50 years for large and broad-based income gains
This is even true if you zoom in on young households. To explain the expressed economic malaise, you either need to go Full Stancil or argue that something, eg housing, is super salient
This is even true if you zoom in on young households. To explain the expressed economic malaise, you either need to go Full Stancil or argue that something, eg housing, is super salient
People are purportedly losing faith in the value proposition of a college degree, however, it is simultaneously true that:
1. the price of tuition has been falling rapidly relative to CPI
2. the college wage premium has been pretty flat
so it might be a particularly *good* time to go to college?
1. the price of tuition has been falling rapidly relative to CPI
2. the college wage premium has been pretty flat
so it might be a particularly *good* time to go to college?
November 29, 2025 at 5:56 PM
People are purportedly losing faith in the value proposition of a college degree, however, it is simultaneously true that:
1. the price of tuition has been falling rapidly relative to CPI
2. the college wage premium has been pretty flat
so it might be a particularly *good* time to go to college?
1. the price of tuition has been falling rapidly relative to CPI
2. the college wage premium has been pretty flat
so it might be a particularly *good* time to go to college?
the issue with Bruce's data, to close the circle, was that there are people, particularly those who are homeless, who are very challenging to survey and who likely have very low incomes.
Although the data we have on them tends to suggest that most homeless people make ~400 / month
Although the data we have on them tends to suggest that most homeless people make ~400 / month
November 28, 2025 at 1:37 AM
the issue with Bruce's data, to close the circle, was that there are people, particularly those who are homeless, who are very challenging to survey and who likely have very low incomes.
Although the data we have on them tends to suggest that most homeless people make ~400 / month
Although the data we have on them tends to suggest that most homeless people make ~400 / month
My recollection of the debate was correct, and the debate largely revolved around how to account for and measure in-kind benefits, particularly in survey data.
If you use Bruce Meyer's data, you get an extreme poverty rate of 0.11%.
web.archive.org/web/20250409...
If you use Bruce Meyer's data, you get an extreme poverty rate of 0.11%.
web.archive.org/web/20250409...
November 28, 2025 at 1:34 AM
My recollection of the debate was correct, and the debate largely revolved around how to account for and measure in-kind benefits, particularly in survey data.
If you use Bruce Meyer's data, you get an extreme poverty rate of 0.11%.
web.archive.org/web/20250409...
If you use Bruce Meyer's data, you get an extreme poverty rate of 0.11%.
web.archive.org/web/20250409...
aside from being a chart crime, I'm think the answer to "why are fewer people living in extreme poverty in china than the US" is "the data aren't comparable".
China is reporting 0% extreme poverty in a consumption based survey; the US reports ~1% in an income based one. *Sweeden* reports a 0.75%.
China is reporting 0% extreme poverty in a consumption based survey; the US reports ~1% in an income based one. *Sweeden* reports a 0.75%.
November 28, 2025 at 1:19 AM
aside from being a chart crime, I'm think the answer to "why are fewer people living in extreme poverty in china than the US" is "the data aren't comparable".
China is reporting 0% extreme poverty in a consumption based survey; the US reports ~1% in an income based one. *Sweeden* reports a 0.75%.
China is reporting 0% extreme poverty in a consumption based survey; the US reports ~1% in an income based one. *Sweeden* reports a 0.75%.
the long view of shelter inflation also makes a much stronger case for the primacy of supply constraints in determining housing affordability
if you think the stagnation + drop beginning in the late 1960s reflects adoption of growth controls, that's kind of the whole story!
@aarmlovi.bsky.social
if you think the stagnation + drop beginning in the late 1960s reflects adoption of growth controls, that's kind of the whole story!
@aarmlovi.bsky.social
November 27, 2025 at 4:55 PM
the long view of shelter inflation also makes a much stronger case for the primacy of supply constraints in determining housing affordability
if you think the stagnation + drop beginning in the late 1960s reflects adoption of growth controls, that's kind of the whole story!
@aarmlovi.bsky.social
if you think the stagnation + drop beginning in the late 1960s reflects adoption of growth controls, that's kind of the whole story!
@aarmlovi.bsky.social
this is almost entirely driven by shelter inflation tracking mostly 1 for 1 with income gains
Housing theory of everything strikes again. I'd be hesitant to go fully to bat for this, but if you think the 1970s drop was partly urban growth controls, they matter a lot more than 2008!
Housing theory of everything strikes again. I'd be hesitant to go fully to bat for this, but if you think the 1970s drop was partly urban growth controls, they matter a lot more than 2008!
November 27, 2025 at 4:41 PM
this is almost entirely driven by shelter inflation tracking mostly 1 for 1 with income gains
Housing theory of everything strikes again. I'd be hesitant to go fully to bat for this, but if you think the 1970s drop was partly urban growth controls, they matter a lot more than 2008!
Housing theory of everything strikes again. I'd be hesitant to go fully to bat for this, but if you think the 1970s drop was partly urban growth controls, they matter a lot more than 2008!
People seldomly make this point correctly, but you can make a mostly-coherent argument that if you look at income gains in terms of the prices of "essentials", they're somewhere between modest and stagnant, depending on which year you pick for your base.
November 27, 2025 at 4:38 PM
People seldomly make this point correctly, but you can make a mostly-coherent argument that if you look at income gains in terms of the prices of "essentials", they're somewhere between modest and stagnant, depending on which year you pick for your base.
what else would you call this?
November 26, 2025 at 4:25 PM
what else would you call this?
He "discusses" it, but he clearly does not understand how poverty lines are constructed or how hedonic adjustment works.
This opening paragraph is immediately discrediting. You also don't get to wave a wand and call all the benefits of airbags and cellphones "price of participation"
This opening paragraph is immediately discrediting. You also don't get to wave a wand and call all the benefits of airbags and cellphones "price of participation"
November 26, 2025 at 4:07 PM
He "discusses" it, but he clearly does not understand how poverty lines are constructed or how hedonic adjustment works.
This opening paragraph is immediately discrediting. You also don't get to wave a wand and call all the benefits of airbags and cellphones "price of participation"
This opening paragraph is immediately discrediting. You also don't get to wave a wand and call all the benefits of airbags and cellphones "price of participation"
crazy you basically can't get a mortgage with a <760 credit score anymore
November 26, 2025 at 3:54 AM
crazy you basically can't get a mortgage with a <760 credit score anymore
Here's how we know this: 130K would be about 12,000 in 1960s dollars.
There were ~45 million families in the US in 1960. Of those about 6.4 million had family incomes > $10,000. So an income of 12,000 in 1960 dollars puts you comfortably in the top ~10%.
There were ~45 million families in the US in 1960. Of those about 6.4 million had family incomes > $10,000. So an income of 12,000 in 1960 dollars puts you comfortably in the top ~10%.
November 25, 2025 at 7:10 PM
Here's how we know this: 130K would be about 12,000 in 1960s dollars.
There were ~45 million families in the US in 1960. Of those about 6.4 million had family incomes > $10,000. So an income of 12,000 in 1960 dollars puts you comfortably in the top ~10%.
There were ~45 million families in the US in 1960. Of those about 6.4 million had family incomes > $10,000. So an income of 12,000 in 1960 dollars puts you comfortably in the top ~10%.
the case-shiller vs median home prices divergence is interesting because the last time "what sales index are you using" had this much material impact for price to income rations was 2006 lol
November 25, 2025 at 4:07 PM
the case-shiller vs median home prices divergence is interesting because the last time "what sales index are you using" had this much material impact for price to income rations was 2006 lol
Interesting that case shiller and the median sale price continue their post-COVID divergence.
The same home is selling for more but cheaper homes are selling (maybe continued trend to cheaper suburbs / exurbs post remote work?)
The same home is selling for more but cheaper homes are selling (maybe continued trend to cheaper suburbs / exurbs post remote work?)
November 25, 2025 at 4:01 PM
Interesting that case shiller and the median sale price continue their post-COVID divergence.
The same home is selling for more but cheaper homes are selling (maybe continued trend to cheaper suburbs / exurbs post remote work?)
The same home is selling for more but cheaper homes are selling (maybe continued trend to cheaper suburbs / exurbs post remote work?)
130K for a household of 4 is about what you get using MIT's living wage calculator (e.g., Hennepin County, MN).
The issue is that this is *definitely* not a poverty wage; per MIT poverty is ~32,000 in MPLS.
people have lost sight of how poor the US was when the poverty line was first introduced.
The issue is that this is *definitely* not a poverty wage; per MIT poverty is ~32,000 in MPLS.
people have lost sight of how poor the US was when the poverty line was first introduced.
November 24, 2025 at 4:14 PM
130K for a household of 4 is about what you get using MIT's living wage calculator (e.g., Hennepin County, MN).
The issue is that this is *definitely* not a poverty wage; per MIT poverty is ~32,000 in MPLS.
people have lost sight of how poor the US was when the poverty line was first introduced.
The issue is that this is *definitely* not a poverty wage; per MIT poverty is ~32,000 in MPLS.
people have lost sight of how poor the US was when the poverty line was first introduced.
here's a fun game to play in light of that (bad) substack on "poverty" going around.
The game is called "the median household of four is rich beyond your wildest dreams".
America is really rich! median household of 4 in seattle is at like 160K.
The game is called "the median household of four is rich beyond your wildest dreams".
America is really rich! median household of 4 in seattle is at like 160K.
November 24, 2025 at 3:45 PM
here's a fun game to play in light of that (bad) substack on "poverty" going around.
The game is called "the median household of four is rich beyond your wildest dreams".
America is really rich! median household of 4 in seattle is at like 160K.
The game is called "the median household of four is rich beyond your wildest dreams".
America is really rich! median household of 4 in seattle is at like 160K.
honestly, in this case, i think we'd end up being fooled by naive causal inference. these are the trends in log-levels over a longer horizon. they track each other pretty well!
maybe the takeaway is people should also try to estimate a mechanism in addition to an effect?
maybe the takeaway is people should also try to estimate a mechanism in addition to an effect?
November 23, 2025 at 10:06 PM
honestly, in this case, i think we'd end up being fooled by naive causal inference. these are the trends in log-levels over a longer horizon. they track each other pretty well!
maybe the takeaway is people should also try to estimate a mechanism in addition to an effect?
maybe the takeaway is people should also try to estimate a mechanism in addition to an effect?
yeah, it's really funny -- did not expect it t be this clean!
there are some mild pre trend issues in the event study plot, but if I had presented this at a seminar and the treatment had been flipped (e.g., "realpage ban overturned"), I doubt anyone would bat an eye
there are some mild pre trend issues in the event study plot, but if I had presented this at a seminar and the treatment had been flipped (e.g., "realpage ban overturned"), I doubt anyone would bat an eye
November 23, 2025 at 6:14 PM
yeah, it's really funny -- did not expect it t be this clean!
there are some mild pre trend issues in the event study plot, but if I had presented this at a seminar and the treatment had been flipped (e.g., "realpage ban overturned"), I doubt anyone would bat an eye
there are some mild pre trend issues in the event study plot, but if I had presented this at a seminar and the treatment had been flipped (e.g., "realpage ban overturned"), I doubt anyone would bat an eye
it's still a pretty soft market relative to the rest of the bay area, but it's no longer falling / is going up again
November 22, 2025 at 5:38 PM
it's still a pretty soft market relative to the rest of the bay area, but it's no longer falling / is going up again