« First « Previous Comments 9 - 14 of 14 Search these comments
freak80
@
2012 Jun 28, 3:33am
Those are factored in.
Yeah right. The gov't has a HUGE incentive to understate inflation.
tatupu70
@
2012 Jun 28, 3:35am
Those are factored in.
Yeah right. The gov't has a HUGE incentive to understate inflation.
Be careful--you're approaching tin foil hat territory. Do you disbelieve all government numbers or just inflation?
tatupu70
@
2012 Jun 28, 3:58am
APOCALYPSEDUCK is Shostakovich says
the whole house number? or just mortgage?
the whole ship the kid off to live without working an under the table job far away number? or just tuition?
The stuff used in those calculations is nowhere near reality.
So, you don't know the methodology, but are sure that "the stuff used in those calculations is nowhere near reality"?
freak80
@
2012 Jun 28, 4:01am
Be careful--you're approaching tin foil hat territory. Do you disbelieve all government numbers or just inflation?
I don't blindly believe anyone who's trying to sell me something. Do you?
tatupu70
@
2012 Jun 28, 4:03am
Be careful--you're approaching tin foil hat territory. Do you disbelieve all government numbers or just inflation?
I don't blindly believe anyone who's trying to sell me something. Do you?
Nope. I would agree if you said that inflation is hard to calculate accurately. Or that the substitutions used by the government are sometimes debatable.
But to infer that the government purposely doctors the official inflation numbers is getting out there.
freak80
@
2012 Jun 28, 4:41am
If you consider that college used to be optional but is now a necessity (unless you want to spend your life making minimum wage) that's huge. And if healthcare costs aren't skyrocketing, why are so many demanding socialized medicine? And in some parts of the country, housing costs are still crazy relative to incomes (Boston, NYC, DC, SF, LA).
« First « Previous Comments 9 - 14 of 14 Search these comments
It really seems lately that house prices are inflated more than they were say.. 30 years ago when our parents owned. So I'd like to do some number crunching to see if this is true.
Case Shiller Index, past 100 years.
http://www.multpl.com/case-shiller-home-price-index-inflation-adjusted/
The Case shiller index gives a decent overview of the economy over the past 100 years. However, I find flaw in using an average line in determining where home prices should trend towards. A lot of crazy world changing events have happened in the past 100 years. 2 world wars, great depression, numerous life altering inventions (A/C, Computers, Car). Therefore I'd like to take a look at a graph that starts a bit more recently.
http://www.jparsons.net/housingbubble/
This guy gives a chart, and a trend line, starting around 1970.
Now let's compare it to the great income chart that is currently on Patrick.net
The inflation adjusted income chart shows an increase from $41,000 to $50,000 from 1967 to 2012. An increase of 21.95%
For the middle link on house prices, It starts in 1970 but I believe $140,000 starting in 1967 is pretty accurate. So housing increased from $140,000 to $170,000 from 1967 to 2012. An increase of 21.43%
Well, that is pretty anticlimatic. I can draw a conclusion that as of 2012, house prices are in line with earnings over the last 45 years. So in most areas of the US, I shouldn't really complain too much about the cost of a house.
However, what goes up must come down. There are still a few factors that I believe will have the house price graph dip below the trend further.
1. More people own homes now that traditionally do (was it like 64% vs 68%?) This should trend downwards toward the normal.
2. Excess inventory.
3. Very recently wages are trending downward.
#housing