Quiz answers

Saturday, February 16, 2008

In order of MOST to LEAST affordable, the list is as follows:

1) Dallas/Ft. Worth (median house price of 2.5 times local median income)

2) Sarasota, FL (5.7)

3) Leicester, UK (6.0)

4) Christchurch, NZ (6.6)

5) New York (7.0)

6) London (7.7)

7) Sydney (8.6)

8) Belfast (8.8)

9) Bournemouth (8.9)

10) Los Angeles (11.5)

Source: Demographia http://www.demographia.com/dhi.pdf

All but the Metroplex, which is characterized as "affordable", are listed as "severely unaffordable." What's that about de-coupling?

Posted by Macro Man at 3:15 PM  

2 comments:

Funny -- I just posted something which, implicitly, tweaks this sort of shortsighted analysis.

House price to income elides one moving part (mortgage rates) that any idiot should consider, and another (tax shield, for the US) that his merely dimwitted brother should remember. But no, these kids think their naivete is a virtue: '[m]ore elaborate indicators, which often include mortgage interest rates and other factors mask the structural elements of house pricing..'

Mask what now? Yiminy.

Don't get me wrong, once you account for actual after-tax costs, such a multiple would be a nice measure. These kids, though, have always struck me as more-or-less full of it.

Or are you really telling me I should buy in Bournemouth rather than Los Angeles?

wcw said...
9:18 PM  

Who would have thought that housing unaffordability in my home town is now higher than where I live now? "If only" I had of invested in property in a sleepy town of Bundaberg where I grew up I would have been far better off now.

Just goes to show, your Mum knows best when she tells you she doesn't want you moving to be big city...

Caprica said...
10:22 PM  

Post a Comment