| I'm sorry you're just wrong about that though. On average, the price per square foot of housing in the US is exactly the same now as it was in the 1970s, on an inflation adjusted basis. [1] In major metros, that number is higher, because of city policy, but on average, the number is flat. That means on an inflation adjusted basis in rural areas houses are cheaper per square foot. Once you take into account that interest rates are about 1/5th of what they were back then, it's clear, housing is actually more affordable now than it ever was (per square foot). Yes, zoning matters in rural areas. Minimum size rules, minimum setback rules -- all sorts of code changes -- have conspired alongside the 20% decrease in average family size and the changing tastes for more space, to make houses twice as big. Same price per square foot -- or lower! -- Twice as big. Twice as expensive. I was wrong to say it has "nothing" to do with it, but it is by far not the dominant force as evidenced by the numbers. If you're unhappy about poor folks not being able to afford the houses that's again social policy not monetary policy. I am too. But inflation isn't why. By all means have at those windmills though, and please, cite your sources so we can have a debate on facts. [edit] You're missing my point. Pricing in metros is more expensive because of council policy. Pricing outside the city is higher because they're twice as big. End of story. Please CITE YOUR SOURCES. This. Is. Not. Inflation. You having a worse quality of life is not inflation. Yes, white flight may or may not contribute to it. That's not Fed policy. That's social policy. And that's my point. [1] https://fee.org/articles/new-homes-today-have-twice-the-squa... |
That doesn't negate the fact that people are still paying higher prices. If the fed is mandated with controlling the increase in prices then it is still upon them to address it, no? The fact that monetary policy is not a primary cause of the good/service specific inflation is irrelevant.