[hotnfresh]

Yeah, if urbanism/centralization (of where people live and also the economy) increased over the same period, the raw figures may give a misleading picture of what things are really like. There are a lot or rural towns that have been shrinking over that time span, and cheap housing in those places doesn’t meaningfully offset rising prices in growing cities.

[jaredhallen]

Sincere question - why not? It seems like the idea is that someone owning one cheap house in a rural community is of less consequence than another higher value home owned in a higher value market. And I'm sure some math could be applied in economic terms to bear that out. But looking at it from a human perspective, I have a hard time accepting that one is better than another.

[hotnfresh]

It’s one of several factors that could mean the prices seen by the median person looking for a house are worse than that 4% median house price increase suggests.

To take it to an extreme to illustrate why this may matter, if one town gets abandoned and the houses all sell for $1 to a single family, while all the former residents move to another similar-sized town that sees prices more than double… you’d be best off ignoring or down-weighting the effect of those $1 houses if you’re trying to figure out how the housing market is looking to most people.

Though it’s possible the figures used for the analysis already account for that kind of thing, in some fashion. Are they actual sale prices, or asking prices? Do they only count sales to someone who’s intending to use the dwelling as a primary residence, or all sales? There’s a lot of room for the median experienced house price for a person just trying to buy a place to live to differ from the median on-paper, depending on how it’s handled.