On Aug 21, 2007, at 2:34 PM, Jordan Hayes wrote:
>>> a century worth of data is useless in this thread.
>>
>> I'm saying the last 10 years or so have been anomalous; the norm
>> is 1% annual real appreciation.
>
> "The norm" in this case is what has happened to real estate prices in
> the last 100 years!? Rubbish. There's _nothing_ "norm" about what
> has
> happened to real estate in the US in 100 years. You might get more
> traction with "post WWII" but you'll catch my attention the most with,
> say, post 1968. Ah, here's one:
>
> http://www.realestateabc.com/graphs/natlmedian.htm
Shiller's index adjusts for quality; that sort of median index (from the National Association of Realtors) does not. It's also affected by the mix of houses; Shiller's holds that constant over time.
I'm not sure why shortening the time period gives you more reliable results.
Doug