Anonymous #2 2d

Now show me housing prices against that graph

1

Anonymous #1 2d

Relative to income, prices have fallen in the rest of the economy so much that it’s actually easier to afford housing today, despite price increases.

0

Anonymous #2 2d

I spent 11 dollars for 4 rolls of toilet paper. Can it lmao

1

Anonymous OP 2d

Who should we trust? The thousands of economists and experts who calculate these things for a living? Or you?

0

Anonymous #2 2d

Me actually, the lived experiences of people in this country run objectively counter to the narrative you are trying to sell with a misunderstanding of the data.

1

Anonymous OP 2d

“Trust my feelings over actual data, we’re actually super poor” he declared, tapping away on a pocket supercomputer in the richest country humanity has ever known.

0

Anonymous #2 2d

No I said the data isn’t backing up your point like you think it is, and we are the richest country (not for long) because of imperialist exploitation of the global south you fucking inbred capitalist sheepdog

0

Anonymous #2 2d

I know with daddies trust fund you aren’t feeling the hurt yet, but trust me boy, you will

1

Anonymous OP 2d

Its funny that the global south keeps getting richer too.

0

Anonymous #2 2d

Source “the economist” LMAO. Anyway show that to a child mining for cobalt in the Congo and then get back to me you dog

0

Anonymous OP 2d

Pretty clearly says that the source is the world data lab. Is reading that hard?

1

Anonymous OP 2d

Child labor is falling globally. Problems exist in the world, but things are generally improving in economic terms.

0

Anonymous #2 2d

And who funds these data initiatives you absolute clown, world data lab literally exists to give insights and data to major companies like L’Oréal, and our world in data is primarily funded by the wealthy pedophile Bill Gates. Besides of course capitalism has created improvements, no marxist thinks feudalism was better lmao. You are lower than a fucking dog and dumber than one too. This isn’t a debate before you “ad hominem” I don’t respect you

0

Anonymous #2 2d

They ain’t letting you on the island bro

0

Anonymous OP 2d

You think major companies and charities are paying for inaccurate data? It’s fucking hilarious that you’re literally arguing that we should trust your feelings over several well respected data sets. At least come up with your own insults instead of parroting the same “this isn’ta debate” line 😂

1

Anonymous #2 2d

And you’re parroting lines and charts funded by wealthy pedophiles, "well respected" dosent mean shit, god is "well respected" and he dosent fucking exist. Go jack off Bill while you’re at it

0

Your inability to engage with data that contradict your preconceptions should be studied.

1

Anonymous #2 2d

Oh no there’s plenty of data I’m willing to engage with, just not misconstrued or flat out biased data

0

Anonymous OP 2d

Of course, any data that seems to support your priors isn’t biased.

1

Anonymous #2 2d

They ain’t letting you on the island my guy

0

Anonymous #2 2d

How is that first chart relevant to the OP?

2

Anonymous OP 2d

$11 for 4 rolls?! wtf luxury brand are you buying and where from? 😭

9

Anonymous #2 2d

Is there a source for the “percent of income spent on housing” graph? You and #1 are likely talking about different things. “House prices” usually refers to buying a house, while “housing” can include renting a house or apartment

6

Anonymous #3 2d

Cheapest at Walmart!

1

Anonymous OP 2d

I would seriously go back and check if it was accidentally scanned as something else because there’s no fucking way 💀 Costco has 30 rolls for $25 online (sometimes less depending on the warehouse)

1

Anonymous #3 2d

I did! I was so floored I almost went to the dollar store instead but I needed the paper

6

Anonymous #3 2d

Many people might look at the op and conclude that employee compensation is falling, when the opposite is true

0

Anonymous #3 2d

https://economistwritingeveryday.com/2023/04/26/spending-on-housing-it-hasnt-really-increased-in-the-past-40-years/ I’d argue that housing is a much more important metric than a narrow focus on mortgages for single family homes

0

Anonymous #2 2d

I’m not sure how they’d draw that conclusion considering it’s represented as a fraction of GDP, not inflation-adjusted wages or wage growth. The OP has a totally different figure

2

Anonymous #3 2d

I think you vastly overestimate media literacy.

0

Anonymous #2 2d

Ok, I think the issue here is you and 1 are talking about very different things. 1 is talking about high-level stats: comparing the median house price to the median income over time. That answers “what can the typical person in a typical area afford if they want to buy a house, excluding details like mortgages?”. You’re talking about the percent of income spent on housing. When you do that over such a long time period without graphing factors that contribute heavily, making the claim that…

4

Anonymous #2 2d

…”it’s actually easier to afford housing today” feels misleading. You’re not factoring in interest rates. Let’s say income was exactly the same throughout this time period. Interest rates have varied so much over this time period that the mortgage payments people are making now are far lower than the payments they were making in 1984

5

Anonymous #3 2d

It also ignores trends in mortgage term lengths. The increase in usage of 30 or even 40 year loans makes monthly payments cheaper, so less of your income goes towards housing, but you’re paying over a much longer time period. I think it’s a bit misleading to say “people are spending less of their income on clothes” if they’re just buying their clothes with Klarna instead of paying with cash

3

Anonymous #3 2d

I don’t think #1’s graph answers that at all. Houses have greatly increased in size and quality. The median house today would be a luxury mansion back then.

0

Anonymous #3 2d

Lower interest rates make it easier to afford housing today.

0

Anonymous #3 2d

I’ll grant the point about mortgage lengths but I think it’s ultimately irrelevant. Incomes have risen faster than cpi generally, which includes all consumer goods, including housing. No matter how you spin it, the median American can afford more today.

0

Anonymous #2 2d

Keep making the rich richer until it trickles down! And yes. We need to introduce 250 year mortgages for our 250th anniversary

6

Anonymous #1 2d

The median American has been getting richer for at least decades, if not centuries.

0

Anonymous #2 2d

Houses have definitely increased in size and quality, but if the median price is increasing much faster than the median income, the houses that are available seem to be more out of reach for the typical person

3

Anonymous #2 2d

Yeah we can afford more stuff like TVs and Netflix subscriptions but harder to afford stuff like cars and houses LMAO (Keep in mind cars often last slightly longer now than before. Both because 1. Tech but also 2. They’re so expensive people often have no choice but to buy shitty car and run it into the ground, instead of buying another car)

6

Anonymous #3 2d

Almost every other price has been increasing much slower than the median income. In total, incomes have risen faster than consumer prices generally, which includes housing.

0

Anonymous OP 2d

Our World In Data clearly cites their sources for the data they’re graphing. The source for the child labor data is literally a UN agency. Discrediting OWID because of its funding without evaluating the underlying source’s data is lazy.

4

Anonymous #1 2d

I don’t hate that philosophy btw. I’m planning on running my car 250k miles or bust!

1

Anonymous #1 2d

People own more cars today than ever before

0