First, you conveniently ignore my second link which points out that housing prices, across all houses, not the cherry picked most expensive subset you picked, when adjusted correctly, have been pretty flat. Care to address that? It's been well known that housing prices, per sq ft, inflation adjusted, has not risen according to the pop belief that you share. Here's another easy way to see it - median home prices since 1950, inflation adjusted, have doubled since 1950 [1]. Median home sizes each decade since 1920 [2]. 1950 was 980 sq ft. 1970 was 1500. 2014 was 2657 (latest on their chart). It sure look like if you picked a 1950 house you'd be paying, well, 1950 rates, doesn't it?

Houses cost more now because people want more, and also because they make more than in 1950, inflation adjusted.

New houses in most of the country are built on new residential land. Where do you think that land comes from? Farmland.

Your list is not inflation adjusted. It's also the top 100 metro areas, not the median of house prices in the US.

The median house in 1950 was under 1/4 acre.

So, can you provide the correct stat or not? Don't pick the highest cost subset of land. Don't pick non inflation adjusted values. And make it the median of all housing.

No wonder you believe the highest component of house cost is land. You don't even have an understanding of how to do basic stats.

Try again.

[1] https://dqydj.com/historical-home-prices/ [2] https://www.newser.com/story/225645/average-size-of-us-homes...

>housing prices, across all houses, not the cherry picked most expensive subset you picked, when adjusted correctly, have been pretty flat. Care to address that?

>median home prices since 1950, inflation adjusted, have not even doubled since 1950

"Not even doubled" = basically flat.

Sure buddy. The single biggest purchase most people will ever make, let's call an 80% increase a rounding error.

>No wonder you believe the highest component of house cost is land. You have not presented actual numbers, only picked the subsets that you like.

If you're going to put all this effort into finding stats then you should first work on your reading comprehension. Here's what I actually said:

>the vast majority of the *increase* of property values is _land_.

> Sure buddy. The single biggest purchase most people will ever make, let's call an 80% increase a rounding error.

They're now choosing to buy a > 200% size home. And this is because inflation adjusted median household income has gone up, tada! you guessed it! Over 200%!

And here's some real number voodoo for you - put inflation adjusted median income and median house size over time into Excel and look at the correlation. What do you think happens there?

So, here's the facts, which you don't care to address: 1) House cost is around flat per inflation adjusted sq foot for decades. 2) The main component of median house prices in the US is NOT land, as you claim 3) The reason houses now cost more is because they are bigger (and looks like a slight lower amount per sq foot than 1950), and.... 4) the reason houses are bigger is because household wages are equivalently bigger, correlating quite well for at least 70 years, so people choose bigger houses because they can afford them, as well as 2 cars, many TVs, more trips, relative food cost has declined, and on and on.

Now, I cited good data for all of these. Do you still dispute any of them?

Go ahead and cite some good data - median, complete US market, any time period, that supports any of your claims otherwise.

> Here's what I actually said:

>>the vast majority of the increase of property values is _land_.

The link where I gave you average per acre cost for housing completely blows that out of the water. Did you not look at it? Here are the steps: 1. Look at the per state average acre for housing price. 2. Look up median house acres (< 0.25). 3. Look up median house prices. 4. Multiply the acres per house (0.25) by the acre cost to get the amount of land cost per house. 5. Subtract 4 from 3. 6. Note how large 5 is compared to 4. 7. Note that it's mathematically impossible that the small amount in 3 can contribute to the inflation adjusted increase in house prices from 1950.

Here, I'll even do a decent estimate for you: from the list Florida has the median land price of around $35000 per acre for housing. Average house land is still under 0.25 (one site said it's now 0.19). So land per house in Florida is around say $8500. Zillow says average Florida house price is ~390,000. This likely has doubled in price and size since 1950 (and if it's an outlier, then some other place in the US counters it, thanks to the magic of medians).

Tell me again that the current cost of $8500 land in a $390,000 house is the cause of the near doubling in price? Did the land cost negative $400,000 in 1950?

So, keep claiming your claim. It's so mathematically impossible as to be ludicrous at this point. If you want to continue to make that claim, show me the numbers broken down just like gave you.

Or are we done since you keep ignoring facts you dislike, and misrepresent the double prices ~ basically flat by completely ignoring that the doubling in price is also a doubling in size which was my very first point (and a doubling of incomes which is why it all fits).

[1] https://www.cbpp.org/income-gains-widely-shared-in-early-pos...

>And this is because inflation adjusted median household income has gone up, tada! you guessed it! Over 200%!

Inflation adjusted median income has gone up over 200%... what do you think inflation is?