I know situations are unique and it would probably vary by metro, but I would love to know if there is an AMI/price cutoff point where people start choosing housing by extra amenities and not just the standard bundle. I mean, around here (Alexandria, VA) our LIHTC buildings have trouble filling 80% AMI units because people at that income level can afford to choose more amenitized units (and will sometimes cost-burden themselves to do it). Units at lower AMIs, otoh, are constantly in demand. So is there a point around 75% of AMI where people start wanting more and is that point the same across the board?
Kevin needs a catchy name for his price/income graphs. Maybe "The Fulcrum Index." In any event, it's a better graphic demonstration of the housing problem than the Case-Schiller index. I'd like to see one for the Boston area just for morbid curiosity--we'll have a wicked steep slope for sure.
To take a stab at part of Ben's comment about housing as a sleeper issue. I think a big part of the problem is that many people view increases in housing costs as some sort of natural phenomenon and not an egregious case of market distortion. Logic should dictate that median housing prices should track NGDP growth rates, or perhaps be just slightly higher to reflect modest increases in house size and quality.
I know situations are unique and it would probably vary by metro, but I would love to know if there is an AMI/price cutoff point where people start choosing housing by extra amenities and not just the standard bundle. I mean, around here (Alexandria, VA) our LIHTC buildings have trouble filling 80% AMI units because people at that income level can afford to choose more amenitized units (and will sometimes cost-burden themselves to do it). Units at lower AMIs, otoh, are constantly in demand. So is there a point around 75% of AMI where people start wanting more and is that point the same across the board?
Kevin needs a catchy name for his price/income graphs. Maybe "The Fulcrum Index." In any event, it's a better graphic demonstration of the housing problem than the Case-Schiller index. I'd like to see one for the Boston area just for morbid curiosity--we'll have a wicked steep slope for sure.
To take a stab at part of Ben's comment about housing as a sleeper issue. I think a big part of the problem is that many people view increases in housing costs as some sort of natural phenomenon and not an egregious case of market distortion. Logic should dictate that median housing prices should track NGDP growth rates, or perhaps be just slightly higher to reflect modest increases in house size and quality.
I think there may be something to this concept of supply and demand.
Somehow, despite the economic consequences of housing shortages hitting many people right in the wallet---housing remains a sleeper issue.
I have no ill feelings towards anybody, live and let live---but really, trans rights gets 10 times (maybe 50 times) the ink that do housing shortages?
In nation after nation, policymakers appear paralyzed.
Obviously, the US needs to develop powerful national incentives for local governments to unzone property.