Median household income in current dollars has more than doubled in Portland since 2000[1].
> It's not a supply and demand problem
Yes it is. Housing prices increase when demand increases. Portland has an arbitrary growth boundary around the city and a lot of restrictions on height.
From 2000-2023, yours shows $42,499-$88,740, but that shows $70,870-$88,740 in 2023 C-CPI-U Dollars.
Apparently cumulative inflation has about doubled nationally since 2000, making the consumer price index (CPI) about double, so $1 in 2000 was worth the same as about $2 today:
So real inflation-adjusted wages in Oregon have risen about ($88,740 - $70,870)/$70,870 = 25% from 2000-2023.
If household incomes had actually doubled and also kept up with inflation, they would be ($70,870 * 2) = $141,740 in today's dollars. Or by your graph, year 2000 wages that doubled and also kept up with inflation (so two doublings) would be ($42,499 * 2 * 2) = $169,996.
Admittedly, I don't know where the $28,256 discrepancy comes from, so expected wages would probably be somewhere between $141,740 and $169,996. Maybe someone more studied in economics can tell us.
From Jan 2000 to Jan 2023 and not adjusting for inflation, housing prices in Oregon have risen from $102,749 to $338,927:
So a $100,000 home in 2000 would cost $200,000 by inflation and $250,000 if housing prices matched the 25% wage increase. But they cost $338,927, so are about 1.36 times more expensive than expected, even accounting for higher wages.
After writing this out, I question what a wage increase means if housing prices just match it. Is it really a raise if it's eaten up by rising housing costs?
Had people invested in things besides housing bubbles, say medical breakthroughs or renewable energy, then today's housing costs vs inflationary costs would be $338,927/$200,000 = 1.69. So homes today are 69% more expensive/overengineered than in 2000.
To me, this doesn't represent supply and demand. It shows that people have put their wage gains into more expensive homes, which reduced the supply of building materials and raised housing costs for everyone else. It also shows that a larger segment of the population today isn't working, because our economy has been moving from manufacturing to finance. Meaning that young working people are carrying a higher load to support the retirements of older people who have invested in real estate, mostly through private equity firms.
You bring up a good point about aging and sick trees though. Most in our neighborhood were cut down due to neglect and disease. The 2008 housing bubble crash left lots empty for a year or two and the banks didn't bother paying the water bill, so the trees died. We've also had unusually mild winters where I live in Idaho, allowing invasive pests and diseases to survive and harm trees. There's no talk of any of this in the local media or messaging from our city council though, so there's no consensus on saving the trees. I sympathize that trees must be cut down sometimes for safety, but it's been hard to watch.
My point about income is that it has doubled in the same way housing prices have. If you inflation adjusted the housing prices they aren’t so out of line with median household income.
If your theory about housing prices is building materials, you’re just flatly wrong. The underlying land values have had very large increases in value, and materials are a small portion of the court of a frame built house. Land and labor costs dominate.
Median household income in current dollars has more than doubled in Portland since 2000[1].
> It's not a supply and demand problem
Yes it is. Housing prices increase when demand increases. Portland has an arbitrary growth boundary around the city and a lot of restrictions on height.
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/205988/median-household-...
Ok I double-checked, and it looks like that graph isn't adjusted for inflation. Here's one that is:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSORA672N
From 2000-2023, yours shows $42,499-$88,740, but that shows $70,870-$88,740 in 2023 C-CPI-U Dollars.
Apparently cumulative inflation has about doubled nationally since 2000, making the consumer price index (CPI) about double, so $1 in 2000 was worth the same as about $2 today:
https://inflationdata.com/articles/2022/08/10/u-s-cumulative...
So real inflation-adjusted wages in Oregon have risen about ($88,740 - $70,870)/$70,870 = 25% from 2000-2023.
If household incomes had actually doubled and also kept up with inflation, they would be ($70,870 * 2) = $141,740 in today's dollars. Or by your graph, year 2000 wages that doubled and also kept up with inflation (so two doublings) would be ($42,499 * 2 * 2) = $169,996.
Admittedly, I don't know where the $28,256 discrepancy comes from, so expected wages would probably be somewhere between $141,740 and $169,996. Maybe someone more studied in economics can tell us.
From Jan 2000 to Jan 2023 and not adjusting for inflation, housing prices in Oregon have risen from $102,749 to $338,927:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/POXRMTNSA
So a $100,000 home in 2000 would cost $200,000 by inflation and $250,000 if housing prices matched the 25% wage increase. But they cost $338,927, so are about 1.36 times more expensive than expected, even accounting for higher wages.
After writing this out, I question what a wage increase means if housing prices just match it. Is it really a raise if it's eaten up by rising housing costs?
Had people invested in things besides housing bubbles, say medical breakthroughs or renewable energy, then today's housing costs vs inflationary costs would be $338,927/$200,000 = 1.69. So homes today are 69% more expensive/overengineered than in 2000.
To me, this doesn't represent supply and demand. It shows that people have put their wage gains into more expensive homes, which reduced the supply of building materials and raised housing costs for everyone else. It also shows that a larger segment of the population today isn't working, because our economy has been moving from manufacturing to finance. Meaning that young working people are carrying a higher load to support the retirements of older people who have invested in real estate, mostly through private equity firms.
You bring up a good point about aging and sick trees though. Most in our neighborhood were cut down due to neglect and disease. The 2008 housing bubble crash left lots empty for a year or two and the banks didn't bother paying the water bill, so the trees died. We've also had unusually mild winters where I live in Idaho, allowing invasive pests and diseases to survive and harm trees. There's no talk of any of this in the local media or messaging from our city council though, so there's no consensus on saving the trees. I sympathize that trees must be cut down sometimes for safety, but it's been hard to watch.