Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford
This has zero to do with rent burden.
|
to me, rent burden is really more of a measure of how many poor people live in a given place rather than a measure of affordability for middle class people.
if you're poor, and can luck your way into subsided housing in SF, it probably is better than being poor and subject to the vagaries of the free market in buffalo.
if you're a middle class average joe just trying to put a reasonably comfortable roof over your family's head, you can do that in buffalo. good luck with that in SF.
and the utterly absurd cost of market housing in SF is one of the main reasons why it has the lowest percentage of children in the nation.
small + expensive = fewer children
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford
You're saying that someone making 50k can more easily buy an 86k asset than someone making 130k buying a $1.3 million asset, which is obvious, and irrelevant.
|
how in the fuck is the ability of middle class people to purchase homes for their families irrelevant to a discussion about affordability?
oh wait, i forgot, we're in Crawfordland, up is down. nevermind.