TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Why the government took home prices out of its main inflation index

143 点作者 amacneil将近 3 年前

16 条评论

recursivedoubts将近 3 年前
<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.longtermtrends.net&#x2F;home-price-median-annual-income-ratio&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.longtermtrends.net&#x2F;home-price-median-annual-inco...</a><p>nb that there is little relation to interest rates, which have been steadily declining since 82:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.freddiemac.com&#x2F;pmms" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.freddiemac.com&#x2F;pmms</a><p>with the recent spike, we are currently at ~2000 interest rates, when homes were at 4x incomes, rather than 7+x<p>home prices have been absolutely bonkers, with two massive bubbles (we are in one right now) and the fact that this doesn&#x27;t show up proportionally in inflation numbers is either malicious, stupid or both<p>the really psychotic aspect of this all is that in the long run it will destroy the economy as family formation craters (too expensive to start a family)<p>maybe that&#x27;s the idea, I can&#x27;t make much sense of it
评论 #31529462 未加载
评论 #31529770 未加载
评论 #31529536 未加载
评论 #31530231 未加载
评论 #31539606 未加载
评论 #31529571 未加载
评论 #31529798 未加载
评论 #31529490 未加载
评论 #31529461 未加载
gilbetron将近 3 年前
For those that only read the headline, the article is much more interesting. There&#x27;s a paper that recreated what the inflation rate would have been with the old method, and it tracks the new method closely, but just has more volatility. Plus, &quot;the government&quot; didn&#x27;t take home prices out, they just switched to a different approach to tracking them.
评论 #31529019 未加载
评论 #31529599 未加载
评论 #31529202 未加载
acd将近 3 年前
I still argue for that central banks got inflation wrong. Central banks set inflation target to to percent to try and control wage inflation. But wage inflation are globalized. So I argue that central banks tried to control local wage increase on a globalized market which is impossible. Central banks cannot control price increases on global market. Also central banks did not take into account increased housing prices in inflation data.<p>Central cannot control energy price increase&#x2F;decrease. central banks cannot control global wage levels. Thus central banks cannot control inflation in a global market.<p>However interest rates set by central banks greatly effect housing prizes since people calculate what mortage they can afford monthly given bank interest rate.<p>This inflation rate vs manipulation of interest rate by central banks has inflated house prices.
评论 #31530169 未加载
评论 #31529752 未加载
评论 #31531227 未加载
djoldman将近 3 年前
The complexity is this:<p>&gt; Suppose you buy a home for $500,000, financing the purchase with a mortgage at a 6.4 percent interest rate. A few years later, you sell for $600,000. Interest rates have fallen, and the new buyer is able to get a mortgage at 4.7 percent.<p>&gt; The price of the home has risen by 20 percent, so you could just say the cost of housing has gone up 20 percent. But that would be misleading. Assuming a 20 percent down payment, your original mortgage would have cost $2,502 per month, while the new owner’s mortgage would cost $2,489 per month. The monthly mortgage payment required to own the home actually went down.
评论 #31529878 未加载
jjslocum3将近 3 年前
Mortgage loan officers (and also car salesmen) do all in their power to redirect people away from the fact that they&#x27;re going to fork over e.g. $600k in total interest and principle for a $300k sticker-price house over 30 years. They do this by focusing on the monthly payment rather than the actual total spend. Convincing buyers that monthly out-of-pocket spend is somehow a proxy for the actual purchase price is a powerful tool that, while not technically deceptive (you do, after all, have to sign a Truth-in-Lending statement when you finance a house), absolutely causes people to spend more than they otherwise would.<p>But since the total lifetime spend on a house is absolutely lower if the interest rate over the life of the loan is lower, then it&#x27;s true that lower interest rates make homes cheaper over their lifetimes. I don&#x27;t understand why the writer of this article would chose to focus on the deceptive monthly payment argument rather than the concrete interest-rate argument.
评论 #31529970 未加载
评论 #31530337 未加载
评论 #31530043 未加载
评论 #31529967 未加载
评论 #31530340 未加载
评论 #31530314 未加载
评论 #31529966 未加载
评论 #31530381 未加载
评论 #31530360 未加载
评论 #31530748 未加载
评论 #31531116 未加载
评论 #31530000 未加载
sokoloff将近 3 年前
&gt; Counting both the home purchase price and mortgage payments was double counting.<p>That seems so blindingly obvious a flaw in the old methodology that I’m surprised that was ever implemented in the first place.
评论 #31529809 未加载
Barrera将近 3 年前
In a nutshell:<p>&gt; The price of the home has risen by 20 percent, so you could just say the cost of housing has gone up 20 percent. But that would be misleading. Assuming a 20 percent down payment, your original mortgage would have cost $2,502 per month, while the new owner’s mortgage would cost $2,489 per month. The monthly mortgage payment required to own the home actually went down.<p>Falling interest rates have kept houses affordable at inflated prices. Because most housing is purchased with debt, the change reflects the reality that most owners are paying off a mortgage. The change made by government prevents interest rate fluctuations from interfering with the CPI calculation.<p>Over time, the change resulted in less volatility of the CPI, but no major changes when viewed from a multi-year perspective.
lupire将近 3 年前
&gt; In 1983, the BLS switched to a new method called owners’ equivalent rent.<p>A big problem in the housing debate is that almost everyone (lay people, media, politicians, advocates) carelessly conflate &quot;houses&quot;, &quot;homes&quot; (including apartments&#x2F;condos), &quot;real estate&#x2F;property&quot; (land + structure), and &quot;housing&quot; (including buying and renting), and don&#x27;t even try to factor in interest rate effects, so all the math is just nonsense mixing apples and sharks.
cudgy将近 3 年前
“Suppose you buy a home for $500,000, financing the purchase with a mortgage at a 6.4 percent interest rate. A few years later, you sell for $600,000. Interest rates have fallen, and the new buyer is able to get a mortgage at 4.7 percent. The price of the home has risen by 20 percent, so you could just say the cost of housing has gone up 20 percent. But that would be misleading. Assuming a 20 percent down payment, your original mortgage would have cost $2,502 per month, while the new owner’s mortgage would cost $2,489 per month. The monthly mortgage payment required to own the home actually went down.”<p>This calculation ignores the down payment, which would be $20,000 more for the buyer a few years later. Seems like a better comparison is to amortize the down payment somehow into the calculation, since buyers have to save up for the down payment while renting prior to their first home. Anyways, the full costs of purchase are not accounted for with this method.<p>Also, what about the other necessary costs of owning a home like closing costs, real estate commissions, insurance, property taxes, pest control, repairs, hoa fees, etc?
hnthrowaway0315将近 3 年前
I think one should have one&#x27;s own inflation index. Basically I&#x27;d layout the expenses (food, utility, mortgage, child day care, etc.) and go from there. Some expenses inflates every year (food&#x2F;utility), some are fixed for 5 years and then maybe jump up&#x2F;down (mortgage, depending if Fed is cutting or hiking rates).
评论 #31529649 未加载
评论 #31529600 未加载
评论 #31530549 未加载
评论 #31529401 未加载
havblue将近 3 年前
A partial problem about cpi, as the article discusses, is that it&#x27;s about what&#x27;s consumed. So it&#x27;s primarily beneficial for people living paycheck to paycheck and less beneficial for people trying to sort out the harder-to-commodify question of quality of life.
nikanj将近 3 年前
Rent goes from $1400 to $1850, but inflation only went up by a few fractions of a percent? Downpayment needed for a family home went from $10k to $75k, and inflation was under 2%?<p>The numbers posted are wholly disconnected from the reality in our wallets.
book_mike将近 3 年前
Ignoring what the value of a currency may be I wish buyers would reject bad prices. I really care about what the actual cost of a thing is from dirt to package. The companies that market, make and deliver products should make a profit but I&#x27;m not buying their Ferrari. Capitalism start with &quot;No deal, not at that price.&quot;
评论 #31529872 未加载
评论 #31530033 未加载
lr4444lr将近 3 年前
Naive question: why couldn&#x27;t the government use something like a 12 month moving average? That way we&#x27;d keep the variable, but limit the weight of its volatility.
评论 #31531795 未加载
FollowingTheDao将近 3 年前
&quot;The example that comes up most often is housing. Critics point back to the early 1980s, when the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) made a fundamental shift in the way it calculates the consumer price index (CPI) for shelter.&quot;<p>Why did the BLS do this in the 1980&#x27;s, no one is asking? Well, I will tell you, in a another simple chart:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.macrotrends.net&#x2F;2015&#x2F;fed-funds-rate-historical-chart" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.macrotrends.net&#x2F;2015&#x2F;fed-funds-rate-historical-c...</a><p>Check out where the FED rate was in the 1980&#x27;s.<p>TLDR, they did not want housing prices to be included in inflation since they knew they were going to go on this rate lowering binge which would increase the price of housing.<p>The folks in that article are trying to tell you housing prices are cheaper because you are paying less per month???? What???? HA! No, they are hiding inflation by using rent equivalent, which is not even close to the real rent prices. If you are paying more to own a house (if you still have a mortgage you do not own your house) then housing is no2 more affordable! Wow, the doublespeak!!!
thawaya3113将近 3 年前
The big problem is people believing that there is any one such thing as inflation.<p>There isn’t. The word inflation represents many, including wildly divergent, ideas.<p>And many of the very different things represented by inflation serve very different purposes, and that’s why they’re changed, because different measures of inflation help measure different concepts. Core inflation is just one of many different measures of inflation.
评论 #31529633 未加载
评论 #31529398 未加载
评论 #31529377 未加载