In the previous post, this comment was made:
(context: this was in response to another comment saying it was a buyers market.)
Think so? Even though buy-vs–rent-ratios are so out of whack?…and despite that homes are still listing for double what they sold for ten years before?
On a very early morning drive this AM to the airport I was wondering what the numbers really were. I know housing pricing hasn’t doubled in raw numbers in the past 10 years and what about the average income, that has surely increased as well? And interest rates, outside of income that is one of the biggest impacts on buyer’s purchasing power.
Here is what I found.
- Median home price growth, 2000 to 2010: +31%
- Median household income, 2000 to 2010: +25%
- Median home price to income ratio growth 2000 to 2010: +4.5% (2.45 to 2.56)
- Average interest rate, 30 year mortgage conventional, 2000 to 2010: – 3.37%
- Median home price growth, 1990 to 2000: +98%
- Median household income, 1990 to 2000: +49%
- Median home price to income ratio growth, 1990 to 2000: +32% (1.85 to 2.45)
- Average interest rate, 30 year mortgage conventional, 1990 to 2000: – 2.12%
Here we see a 30% rise in the cost of buying a home.
Let’s thank our lucky (lone) star that we are not like SF or California as a whole. Even after the ‘crash’, the income to home price ratio for SF is 4 times what it is here and 2.6 times for the state as a whole (including the vast wastelands of places like the island empire).
Within a more recent analytic window, we have seen income growth outstrip home price growth since 2007. Median incomes are up 6%, median home price is up 2% and interest rates have improved by 1.65 points. That means housing is 5.35% more affordable than it was 2007.