Why would you want to live in an area with a great wealth disparity? Aka, the median income folks cannot afford to buy median house in the area? I don't.visualguy wrote: ↑Sat Dec 04, 2021 9:40 pmWhy would you care about that ratio? That's what I'm trying to understand. I never heard anyone use that as a metric for deciding whether an area is a good place to live or not.KlangFool wrote: ↑Sat Dec 04, 2021 9:22 pmvisualguy,visualguy wrote: ↑Sat Dec 04, 2021 8:09 pmAssets are more important than income. I don't get the obsession with income. You can have an unimpressive income, while having a high net worth. For examples, techies who made money at some point on IPOs or big RSU grants when they were at their peak, but now don't make nearly as much or are retired/semi-retired. There are people who inherit money, or get family help, etc. Income is just part of the picture. You need to look at the entire picture, including assets.
Moreover, you need to look at income+assets among current BUYERS in the area, not the entire population. Typically most of the population in these areas bought years ago when prices were lower.
This may matters to you. But, I don't.
I live in a neighborhood with an annual median household income of 150K with the median house price of 600K. It is about 4X. It is a good ratio for me.
As for why someone like living in an area with a 3 millions 2,200 square feet house with substantial lowered median income ratio, it is their choice. But, it is not for me.
KlangFool
<< Why would you care about that ratio?>>
Why won't you care about this ratio?
Is it because
A) you do not care
or
B) this problem does not exist where you live
(A) or (B)?
KlangFool