Additionally, normalising to 100% obscures the overall number of houses being built / available. A dropping percentage could still mean a net increase, perhaps even relative to population growth.
The argument may well be correct, but the data as presented can't reliably support it.
This isn't actually correct, or at least it's not a correct interpretation of the data. The absolute number increased, but it decreased as a percentage of population, which is the relevant number here.
Percentages can be highly misleading because they abstract from the hard reality of absolute numbers. This is especially true when considering the exponential nature of population growth.
The cited percentage change would be far more encouraging if population was constant, but it's not.
>the number of 2 or more income households has actually fallen
Where in your citation is this claim supported? The /percentage/ has fallen which could either mean that the number has fallen or that the total population increase at a faster pace than the number.
Reducing the 52% drop to a 47% drop doesn't change the point much.
edit - though I agree that the data isn't good enough to really support any conclusions yet. That would take about ten years and several different cities.
The number of people per dwelling went up though, so that hasn't happened, at least not on average.
But I think the average could be misleading if the household size had gone up significantly in council homes, hiding a slightly falling household size in the private sector. But that's pure speculation.
In addition the data isn't normalized. The rate of something could be decreasing year-over-year but due to population increase the quantity continues to increase. Ignoring the normalized data helps journalists create sensationalistic headlines.
Prove me wrong. Show me the stat for housing units per capita.
Housing units per working age person is an all time high.
Show me the stats for housing units per household. Hint, it's the same as the year 2000 and in line with historically normal levels. 1.1 housing units per household
Show me the stat for rate of construction relative to population growth. Hint, it's at an all time high.
Show me the demographic trends? Hint, it's towards flat or negative population growth, with most boomers dying over the next 10y, and each successive generation being smaller than the last.
Where are your stats? Inventory, which has nothing to do with actual supply? What happened after the generationally low inventory of the 2000s?
Anyone holding to that peg as confirmation of anything is in for a rude awakening
I mean, if you're not using percentages than it's all meaningless. More people own homes. More people rent. There are more Republicans. There are more Democrats.
Seriously, you seem to think there's something profound about "total population numbers go up, all the numbers go up"?
A 4% drop in average household size produces a 4% drop in median household income? That’s not a relatively big change, that’s a small change and exactly what I’d expect.
Real per capita GDP rose by around 25% over this period. What accounts for the other 21%?
The median new home is double the size of what it was in 1973. In today's new houses, each person has about as much space as the entire solidly middle class 3BR house my four-person family lived in growing up.
Instead of keeping the actual proportion of black residents, the data set contains a presumed model B of how housing prices change as black resident population moves away from 63%. The problem is B gives you the same answer for 62% and 64% of black population, so you can recover the actual proportion.
The author of this page has made critical errors in either interpreting or creating many of the graphs on the page.
> Another housing trend that popped up in 2014 was the rise in homes with four or more bedrooms.
If you actually look at the graph, the rise in 4+ bedrooms had been going since 1985. In 2014 it just became the most popular.
> Demand for fireplaces has been cooling since the ’90s with 2007 being the first year that more homes were built without the feature than with.
Actually, that would be 2010. The "None" point is plotted higher than the "1" point in 2007 but still definitely below the 50% mark.
> The average square feet of floor area in a newly completed single-family home was down 2 percent or 56 square feet in 2017 from the high mark.
The graph above has percentages in the y-axis rather than square feet...no idea what happened there. Plus, it is somewhat misleading! In the real data chart [0, page 9], the median square footage actually increased in 2017, while the average did decrease. Additionally, this difference appears to be within the relative standard error window.
The argument may well be correct, but the data as presented can't reliably support it.
reply