
The New York Times is reporting that the median cost of housing ownership in America is about 22% of pre-tax income . That's apparently down about 10% from twenty years ago, which means that for most of the country, owning a house is actually cheaper now than it was then. Big catch: this doesn't apply to you, your friends, or anyone else in New York City, where the median percentage is 37%, which is actually up 12.2% from five years ago (and about 7% from twenty years ago). Way to go, Big Apple! Remember, this is the median percentage-- if you want to live in a neighborhood with a supermarket or subway access, expect to pay about 62.5% more!
The article goes on to say that since the cost of home ownership nationwide is lower now than it's been before, a widespread housing crash isn't expected in 2006. Of course, that doesn't rule out a gigantic implosion here in New York City. We're keeping our fingers crossed-- it's our only prayer of getting a two-bedroom apartment for less than two gabillion dollars. [Related: Curbed's housing bubble-coverage.]





One city planner once theorized that the inverse of this number is a good measure of "quality of life," ie. a better measure than the subjective "quality of life" indexes.
That is, if you are paying a higher share of your income for housing, your personal standard of living is lower. Therefore, to attract people to a place with a lower standard of living, that place must have a superior collective quality of life. Boulder Colorado (low standard of living, high quality of life) and Detroit (high standard of living, low quality of life) were given as examples.
That said, I think the income-adjusted price of NYC is too high relative to Buffalo.
Elliot Spitzer should be putting his sites on Price Fixing in the housing market in New York area.
Who cares that I have to pay 99 cents for a song instead of 25 cents.
I want to buy a home for $250,000 instead of $750,000
what a scam!