Pure clickbait to define a start home solely by the price and nothing else. The titles claim is correct overall, correct for some cities, but incorrect for many cities. No mention of volume - how many homes are in the large “start home” band v the small top 5% band?
Regardless, even calling them lower cost houses still supports the thesis: more data on the K shaped economy.
Avicebron•16m ago
Clearly the bottom section of that K should bootstrap themselves harder. Or work on their firm handshake.
Joking aside, the amount of people who have absolutely no understanding of how bad the housing market to income ratio of the average person is so comically stupid it must be deliberate at this point. To share articles like this just belabors that ignorance.
bix6•15m ago
No mention of condos? Surely that’s eating some of the starter home demand?
alephnerd•9m ago
At least in SF, condo prices have stagnated or started falling becuase condos are aging and liability starts becoming much more of a risk.
crooked-v•15m ago
If you look at the location chart and their definition of "starter homes", this just turns into a heat map of housing shortages.
soared•26m ago
Regardless, even calling them lower cost houses still supports the thesis: more data on the K shaped economy.
Avicebron•16m ago
Joking aside, the amount of people who have absolutely no understanding of how bad the housing market to income ratio of the average person is so comically stupid it must be deliberate at this point. To share articles like this just belabors that ignorance.