• Aceticon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    The CPI used for that doesn’t distinguish between generations so the lower house prices from people who got their houses in the 1990s are going to be mixed with the higher house prices of those trying to get their houses now with the former dilluting the latter.

    Further the inflation index doesn’t reflect a lowering utility value of houses: if dwellings further and furthe taway from the places of work are built and occupied because people are been pushed further out by higher prices, so the utility of the houeses is lowet, that is not reflected in the CPI (at most it makes it a bit lower than it should be since the expanding pool of lower utility houses pulls the average price down a bit).

    Further, as others pointed out, younger people are staying in their parents for longer and longer AND delaying childbirth, so their available income is higher because they’re not spending any money in housing or children.

    The numbers not only do not reflect a better life, they’re not even comparable in their own merits across generations because the personal inflation of somebody looking for a place to live now is totally different from the one of those who have been living in a house they bought 30 years ago.

    • iopq@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      That’s a valid criticism, but most mortgages are 30 years, so anyone who bought a house in 1994 is paying their last payments on it.

      People like my dad who bought houses during the 2000s didn’t get a good deal. Sure, it still eventually appreciated, but it’s not an outrageously good deal compared to getting a house just a few years later

      That said, it’s getting better in places that build new housing