[Panzer04]

Because houses are the benchmark for all costs? No need to reinvent the wheel, inflation stats exist for a reason.

Inflation-adjusted, 3k in 1950 is ~40k today, so 150k leaves you much better off in general.

Also, 150 is definitely high (though not crazy or anything). It's more than twice the average US wage.

[janalsncm]

Inflation stats are just measuring the prices of a set of goods without regard to whether you need them or how much you need them. If inflation stats say you can buy 2x the number of cheeseburgers today that doesn’t mean you will.

I specifically mention housing because it is one of the main things (aside from education and healthcare) that our neoliberal economic system has not been able to import, and which have skyrocketed in cost since the 70s. And everyone needs housing.

[Panzer04]

You're incorrect. Inflation numbers do account for substitution effects (ie. People buying a cheaper replacement good). Something no one buys that goes up in price 100x has no substantial effect on inflation, while food that everyone buys going up 10% goes straight into it. Depends on the agency doing the stats and calculations, but it's probably in the ballpark.

Adjusted, people have more purchasing power today, even if they are spending relatively more on housing.

High house prices suck, and definitely are a big problem, arguably self-bflicted in most places by increasingly onerous regulations (zoning, building quality, minimum sizes, and so on). Certainly there are some benefits to that, but all comes at the cost of increased house prices.

The other thing is labour has become relatively very expensive compared to most goods today, and houses embed a huge labour cost component - so their price (along with other labour-intensive sectors like, well, education and healthcare), have gone up much more than eg. Food, which can be produced largely with capital investment (tractors and so on)