There are lots of ways of looking at the housing market. Via Twitter, Scott Shaffer suggests looking at the change in rent vs. change in income for the largest American communities. Here’s his chart:

Shaffer’s data comes from the ACS. I created a similar chart for a dozen big cities using BLS rent inflation data and Census Bureau income data:

The results are similar, though Shaffer’s chart is more dramatic than mine. The ACS data suggests that, relative to income, rents have increased between 10-30 percent in the largest US counties since 2000. The BLS data comes in closer to 0-20 percent.

My chart is limited because the BLS doesn’t have historical rent series for more than about the dozen biggest cities. It also has the usual drawback of being based on entire metro areas, not just central cities, but Shaffer’s data is county-based and suffers from the same limitation. In any case, the more I’ve worked with this data the less I think this is a problem. In places with tight housing, the surrounding suburbs tend to increase in price at similar rates to the core city.

For what it’s worth, I’ve worked a bit with the ACS data and have come to have some suspicions about it. In Shaffer’s chart, for example, the scatterplot is surprisingly tight even though he’s plotted the top 100 counties. This means it goes all the way from Los Angeles down to cities like Birmingham, Stockton, and Rochester, and it’s hard to believe that every single one of them has seen such similar rent increases.

But then again, maybe they have. That’s part of the problem with this subject: there are lots of different data sources and none of them are ideal. The choice of starting and ending points can also make a big difference. What’s more, income vs. rent in big cities is inherently problematic since it can stay flat just by pushing out everyone with a middle income and attracting lots of new high-income residents. This is very much the case with San Francisco, for example.

Anyway, this is the latest cut at the housing data.

POSTSCRIPT: As usual, I should add that this is all median data and tells us nothing about low-income families or low-income housing. I’ve taken a stab or two at that, but the data is very difficult to get a handle on.

WE CAME UP SHORT.

We just wrapped up a shorter-than-normal, urgent-as-ever fundraising drive and we came up about $45,000 short of our $300,000 goal.

That means we're going to have upwards of $350,000, maybe more, to raise in online donations between now and June 30, when our fiscal year ends and we have to get to break-even. And even though there's zero cushion to miss the mark, we won't be all that in your face about our fundraising again until June.

So we urgently need this specific ask, what you're reading right now, to start bringing in more donations than it ever has. The reality, for these next few months and next few years, is that we have to start finding ways to grow our online supporter base in a big way—and we're optimistic we can keep making real headway by being real with you about this.

Because the bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we hope you might consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

payment methods

WE CAME UP SHORT.

We just wrapped up a shorter-than-normal, urgent-as-ever fundraising drive and we came up about $45,000 short of our $300,000 goal.

That means we're going to have upwards of $350,000, maybe more, to raise in online donations between now and June 30, when our fiscal year ends and we have to get to break-even. And even though there's zero cushion to miss the mark, we won't be all that in your face about our fundraising again until June.

So we urgently need this specific ask, what you're reading right now, to start bringing in more donations than it ever has. The reality, for these next few months and next few years, is that we have to start finding ways to grow our online supporter base in a big way—and we're optimistic we can keep making real headway by being real with you about this.

Because the bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we hope you might consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate