confusedapegenius t1_jdzvu6e wrote

I love that this captures local/state housing costs. That makes much more sense than leaving it out of context.

When extremely rich states like California have the highest poverty rates, it seems to highlight the failure of the real estate housing market in proving economically appropriate shelter for sizeable portions of the population. I would argue that non market housing is an appropriate remedy.


confusedapegenius t1_jdzvehf wrote

This measure captures housing costs. They have gone up just about everywhere, but several highly populated areas in California are amongst the most expensive in the country. They also have very high gdp, of course.

So if it’s California’s (or anyone’s) “fault”, it’s because they didn’t build enough non-market housing. Which I would agree with.