Am I missing something in my inflation calculation, have we divided into areas with steady growth and increasing incomes vs say non tech cities without rising incomes and people moving there or is it something else? Because there are lots of cities, like stereo-typically mid-west cities that have struggled to maintain their population after major manufacturers leave.

Of course, at that zoomed out view it becomes "houses are more expensive where people want to live" which is kind of tautological.

The conclusion goes beyond that. The argument is that local areas may see price inflation, but over time they trend towards the mean (you can't have the average be inflation otherwise).

So basically people may enjoy an increase worth of their property, but it's not a long term trend but rather something that happens in distinct periods, usually followed by a price drop or stagnation that pulls the average back towards the mean.

It's simply impossible on a long term over a long area.

And, as HN commentators, we have been accustomed to appreciation in "our areas" for nearly 40 years now - and that has covered many "mistakes" that may not be covered in the future.

I think that in the expensive tech cities (for lack of a better description), like seattle, austin, SF/bay area, prices have generally increased over time much faster than inflation, and they aren't losing that lead. It's actually true that people can hardly afford to live in those places because hourly wages of $20+/hour is just not enough to pay for housing. Using a multiple of avg salary seems wrong because where does the average come from, because avg in that area?

It's simply too expensive for most regular workers, teachers, police, but also that person working at a coffee shop can't afford to live there. It's not a good thing. I recognize we need to build more housing and I'm part of the problem because I bought a house in mine a long time ago.