top | item 46458173

(no title)

lukevp | 2 months ago

If you’re trying to do a rebuttal, saying that wages are slightly higher than Mississippi and house prices are slightly lower than Cali doesn’t refute anything, it just serves to make the example more extreme and concrete. Look at house prices in Mississippi in relation to their income and then compare the same ratio for Cali and for London.

discuss

order

verbify|1 month ago

I'm not sure why we're doing states vs cities. Jackson (the largest city in Mississippi) has a population of 150k. If I find a non-commuter belt town in the UK with a size of 150k, then the house prices will be dramatically lower. An analysis of London house prices needs to take into account that major urban areas in general command a premium (for reasons other than the ability to earn more).

If you compare SF or LA to London, then you'll find:

City | Median Wage | Median House Price | Ratio SF | 104k | $1.5m | 14.42 London | 67k | $890k | 13.28 LA | 73k | $1.1m | 15.07

London ends up being slightly more affordable despite lower salaries.

The whole analogy was a bit meaningless - it wasn't an apples to apples comparison. The writer mixed geographic and demographic scales to make a point that could just as well be about the unaffordability of large cities.

Thorrez|1 month ago

Fixed table formatting:

    City   | Median Wage | Median House Price | Ratio
    SF     | 104k        | $1.5m              | 14.42
    London |  67k        | $890k              | 13.28
    LA     |  73k        | $1.1m              | 15.07

piker|2 months ago

Also, taxes?

butvacuum|1 month ago

tax numbers are irrelevant except as part of a takehome pay calculation.

at the very least, pretending that health insurance isnt another tax is a common way to derail these discussions.