That's the hard to believe part, it would imply housing costs on average are only up by 86%, but that doesn't seem to be anywhere near accurate in at least large parts of the country (all the ones I looked at least when we considered moving).
Not everywhere has had the same housing problems SF and NYC have had.
Far more than SF and NYC have had housing prices more than double over the last 20 years. Hell, doubling over that timeframe would barely be over 3% inflation.
That there exists a cheap house in a rural area doesn’t help most people who need a job. For them inflation is higher.
Plenty of non-NYC/SF major metro areas (>1mm people) with far lower housing inflation than those cities. No need to be rural.
This is true, but the question is not whether it helps or not but if the 86% increase is the right number or not.
Yes inflation was higher in big cities.
I think the parent commenter understands this part, they're just saying they think the values are actually much higher
but maybe this is true if you factor in cheaper mortgages, lower rates . financing options were worse in 1999 vs 2019. Homes were very cheap in 1970 but way harder to get a good mortgage, too. much more was paid upfront.
this is the boomer retort. something Kirsty Allsopp might say for example.
But: would you rather buy say a car for $100k interest free or $10k at 10% interest?