Reuters reports today that
U.S. home prices are unaffordable for many workers. The piece cites a study which found "many American workers would still struggle to afford a median-priced home in major cities" because median prices are too high. Did the author or the study's research director miss statistics class? All the articles and comments about housing refer to "median prices" and they explain that median means the point at which half are under and half are over, but they just don't demonstrate an understanding of the term "median." Everyone cannot afford a home priced at the median unless all prices are the same, i.e. a Communist economy. Necessarily, half of all people, assuming perfect competition should not be able to afford the median. Factory workers being at the lower end of the salary scale, they should have difficulty purchasing the median. Their income is below the median.
And this study looked at median prices in urban areas like New York City and San Francisco. Those places are dominated by limousine liberals. Why don't they enact some sort of price controls so rich people cannot dominate the markets? I suspect that would be contrary to the self-absorbed thinking of these closet capitalists.
Even in Communist societies, there are homes the proletariat cannot afford. Those "above the median prices" are reserved for the ruling class. That was evident in Soviet Russia, pre-Capitalist China and every other Socialist or Communist government which has ruled a country. It seems it is unavoidable.
The question is not whether factory workers can afford to own median or even average homes in places devoid of large factories like Manhattan or the financial district of San Francisco. The question is not whether journalists can afford median homes in major urban areas. The question is whether average Americans can afford homes at all. And since
home ownership in these United States is at levels never before seen in the history of the world, the answer to the question is a resounding YES!