The article cites well grounded aggregate statistics. Eastern Oregon doesn't affect the statistics because not enough people live there. So Eastern Oregon and all the other very low population places are a red herring. Please argue with the points presented not some other issue entirely.
Drum specifically calls out the high cost cities. But the aggregate statistics show that these are exceptions to the general pattern. We should not argue from our personal experience when the statistics show it is not typical.
This is policy relevant. If the Feds are going to intervene, it is very important that they intervene in the actual problem, not some misunderstood version of the problem where intervention would be at best a waste of resources and political capital, and at worst further proof that "government intervention is always bad."
A question with potentially constructive answers: "What federal interventions would potentially be helpful given that the housing crisis is mainly in a few high-rent cities?"
Drum specifically calls out the high cost cities. But the aggregate statistics show that these are exceptions to the general pattern. We should not argue from our personal experience when the statistics show it is not typical.
This is policy relevant. If the Feds are going to intervene, it is very important that they intervene in the actual problem, not some misunderstood version of the problem where intervention would be at best a waste of resources and political capital, and at worst further proof that "government intervention is always bad."
A question with potentially constructive answers: "What federal interventions would potentially be helpful given that the housing crisis is mainly in a few high-rent cities?"