Tried getting this going with google gemini AI. It had an error right off the hop, I guess trying to do charts from data it would find. I don't know. I then tried with chat GPT because it was working not too bad with stuff the other week. But it taps out pretty fast where they want you to pay. Whatever.. got some data here. Any pics of charts, I'll upload them all to an imgur album. ok here you go.. the charts it doodled. You got 7 charts as we were going along.
This was the chat process, how I wound up with this stuff.
==============================
Can you get a graph of the cost of an average house with a garage, since like, I don't know.. as far back as you can go. Probably be around like after WW2. Then do inflation adjusted so you get an idea how much it costs compared to what an average person would make. You also have locations, coasts seems to be more. So I don't know how you can do an average.. the coasts seems ridiculous. It's been going up though a fair bit in central areas. See what you can do for charts.
Thought for 43s
Thanks — this is a great (big) project and I can do it — quick question before I dive in so I don’t waste time: do you want the analysis for the United States (national + coasts vs. interior) or for Canada (or both)?
If you don’t care / don’t reply, I'll assume United States and will:
Pull long-run national house-price series (Census median home values for 1940–2000 decennial, Census/HUD/NAR and FRED series for 1963→present) and an all-transactions house-price index (FHFA or Case-Shiller) to extend coverage.
Pull median household income (Census / FRED) for the same periods.
Pull CPI (CPI-U) so I can inflation-adjust all prices to real (2024) dollars.
Compute and plot:
Nominal median house price (long-run) and inflation-adjusted series.
Median house price ÷ median household income (price-to-income ratio) over time — this shows how many years of median income it takes to buy a median house.
A comparable chart by broad region: coasts (Northeast & West) vs. Midwest/South (using Census regions or FHFA regional indices) so you can see the coastal divergence you mentioned.
Short notes on data definitions/limitations (new vs. existing homes, owner-occupied value vs. sale price, garage presence caveat), and citations to the data sources (Census, FRED, FHFA, NAR).
Reply “US” to confirm that’s fine, or say “Canada” (or “Both”) and I’ll proceed. If I get no reply, I’ll proceed with the U.S. and produce the charts and dataset. Which do you want?
We'll stick with the US for now.
Done — I pulled public series from FRED and the Census and made three charts plus a small summary table.
What I used (sources):
Median sales price of houses sold (MSPUS) — quarterly, U.S. Census/HUD via FRED (series MSPUS).
FRED
+1
Consumer Price Index, all items, U.S. city average (CPIAUCNS) — monthly CPI via FRED (used Jan-of-year values to inflation-adjust to 2024 dollars).
FRED
Median household income (MEHOINUSA646N) — annual, Census via FRED (1984–2024).
FRED
Census decennial median home values (unadjusted) for 1940–2000 (decennial datapoints) from the Census historical table.
Census
Notes on methodology and limitations (important):
You asked about “houses with a garage” specifically — there is no reliable long-run national time series that isolates only houses with garages. I used median home prices / median sales prices as a close proxy for “typical house” nationally. If you want a garage-specific series we’d need a specialized dataset (not available historically at the national level).
MSPUS is median sales price of new houses sold (quarterly), while the Census decennial table is median value of owner-occupied housing. They measure different things (sales price vs. stock value) and use different populations (new sales vs. all owner-occupied). I combined them carefully but flagged the difference in the chart and in the write-up.
Inflation adjustment: I converted nominal dollars to 2024 dollars using Jan CPI values from the CPI series (so all “real” numbers are expressed in 2024 USD). That makes house prices comparable across decades.
Income: median household income series from FRED (annual) was converted to 2024 USD using the same CPI basis so the comparisons (price vs income) are apples-to-apples.
For annual house prices I used the first-quarter (Q1) MSPUS observation for each year when available; for years prior to 1963 I used Census decennial medians (1940/50/60) and interpolated between those decennial points to create a continuous visual — the interpolation is only to help visualize trends and is not a claim of exact annual values in 1941–1959.
The affordability ratio plotted is (median house price in 2024 USD) / (median household income in 2024 USD). Higher ratio = houses cost more years of the median household income (less affordable).
What I produced (files & visuals):
Three charts shown inline:
Median house price (nominal series) and the same series inflation-adjusted to 2024 USD (with census decennial points highlighted).
Real (2024 USD) median house price vs. real median household income (2024 USD) on the same axes.
Affordability ratio: median house price / median household income (both in 2024 USD) by year, with a reference ratio = 3 shown.
A small summary table with key years (1940, 1950, 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010, 2020, 2024) giving nominal median house price, median house price in 2024 USD, median household income in 2024 USD, and the house/income ratio for those years (displayed for you as an interactive table).
A combined PNG chart file saved: Download the combined chart
Quick takeaways (from the charts):
Real (inflation-adjusted to 2024 dollars) median house prices have risen substantially from mid-20th century levels. There are clear spikes around the mid-2000s (housing boom) and a strong rise again in the 2010s–2020s.
Median household income (real, 2024 USD) has risen much more modestly compared with house prices — meaning houses cost more multiples of median income now than in earlier decades.
The affordability ratio (house price ÷ median income) is visibly higher in recent decades than in much of the post-WWII period, illustrating the point you made about coastal/metro prices outpacing central areas — though the national median hides a lot of geographic variation.
If you want any of the following next, I can do it now (no waiting):
Replace MSPUS with FHFA All-Transactions HPI or Case-Shiller-based implied median prices (helps if you want an index that covers repeat-sales rather than new-home sales).
FRED
+1
Produce separate coast vs interior regional charts (Case-Shiller has city composites and FHFA has metro-level series — I can build coast vs midwest/south comparisons).
FRED
+1
Produce a downloadable CSV of the combined annual series (nominal & real house prices, income, CPI used).
Swap the inflation base year (e.g., convert to 2020 USD instead of 2024).
Which of those would you like me to do now? Or do you want refinements (e.g., show the house-price-to-income ratio for specific metros like Los Angeles, New York, Dallas)?
These are all inflation adjusted?
Good question — not all the lines are inflation-adjusted, but I’ll spell it out clearly for you:
✅ Chart 1 (two lines)
Blue (nominal): raw median sale prices (in their original year’s dollars, not adjusted).
Orange (real / inflation-adjusted): the same prices converted into 2024 dollars using the Consumer Price Index (CPI).
So that chart lets you see both the raw rise and the inflation-corrected rise.
✅ Chart 2
Both lines (house prices and household incomes) are inflation-adjusted to 2024 USD.
That way you can compare what’s really changed in purchasing power — it’s a “real-terms” comparison.
✅ Chart 3 (affordability ratio)
The ratio uses both series in 2024 USD, so inflation cancels out.
That line shows how many years of median income it takes to buy a median-priced house, with inflation already removed.
✅ Summary table
The “MedianHouse_2024USD” and “MedianIncome_2024USD” columns are both inflation-adjusted.
The “MedianHouse_Nominal” column is the original, unadjusted value.
So bottom line:
Everything that’s being compared (house vs. income, or ratio) is inflation-adjusted to 2024 dollars.
Only the “nominal” line in the first chart shows unadjusted prices.
Would you like me to add one extra chart that shows the difference visually — e.g., nominal vs. real side by side with inflation levels shaded? It’s a good way to see how much of the rise is just inflation vs. real appreciation.
You said "Would you like me to add one extra chart that shows the difference visually — e.g., nominal vs. real side by side with inflation levels shaded? It’s a good way to see how much of the rise is just inflation vs. real appreciation." Yeah let's check that out.
Here’s the extra chart you asked for — it compares nominal vs. inflation-adjusted (2024 USD) median house prices, with the gray shaded band showing how much inflation had to be applied to convert each year’s dollars into 2024 dollars.
You can read it like this:
The blue line (nominal) shows what people actually paid in that year’s dollars.
The orange line (real) shows what that same price is worth today after accounting for inflation.
The gray shaded area shows how big an inflation adjustment was needed — e.g., a multiplier of about 15× for the 1950s, 10× for the 1970s, etc.
So the vertical distance between the blue and orange lines in early years is almost entirely inflation; the remaining upward movement in the orange line is true real appreciation.
Would you like me to overlay U.S. median income (real) on this same plot so you can directly see how home prices diverged from income over time, with inflation shaded behind it too?
You got anything in all this, of what an average person would get paid? Nevermind your "gross" because it's like a third they take in taxes. So all that matters is how much you get paid.
Perfect — you’re asking the real question: “What did people actually take home — not gross income — compared to house prices?”
That’s a super important distinction, because the “median household income” numbers I used earlier are gross before-tax income (from the Census). As you said, what matters is after-tax disposable income — what people could actually spend on housing.
Here’s how we can get there:
🧾 Step 1. Available data on after-tax (disposable) income
The U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) publishes a long-term series called “Real Disposable Personal Income per Capita” (A229RX0).
“Disposable” means after federal, state, and local taxes.
“Real” means already adjusted for inflation (to chained 2017 dollars, but we can scale it to 2024 USD to match the other charts).
It’s per person, not per household — but you can roughly multiply by ~2.5 for an average household to approximate a “household disposable income.”
🏠 Step 2. Compare that to inflation-adjusted home prices
We can compute:
Median house price / real disposable income per capita
and also
Median house price / real disposable income per household (≈ per capita × 2.5)
That ratio will be lower than the one we saw before (since disposable income < gross income), but it gives a truer sense of affordability.
Would you like me to:
Pull the BEA series for Real Disposable Personal Income per Capita and add it to the dataset,
Adjust it to 2024 dollars,
Plot house price vs. after-tax disposable income (and a ratio line like before)?
That’ll show how many after-tax years it takes to buy a median house — which is probably the most realistic affordability measure.
Want me to go ahead and do that?
When you use the term "nominal".. that's like cheaper houses?
Excellent question — and it’s easy to mix up because “nominal” sounds like “small” or “cheap,” but it doesn’t mean that.
Let’s break it down simply:
🟦 Nominal = the actual dollar amount at the time
It’s what people literally paid in that year’s money.
It doesn’t account for inflation, so older “nominal” prices look cheaper only because the dollar used to buy more.
Example:
In 1955, the median U.S. house cost $11,000 (nominal).
That sounds cheap — but $11,000 back then bought about what $125,000–$130,000 buys today.
So “nominal” isn’t cheaper houses — it’s unadjusted money values that look smaller because of inflation.
🟧 Real (inflation-adjusted) = true purchasing power
Adjusts nominal prices for inflation (e.g., using the Consumer Price Index).
It tells you how expensive something really was in today’s money.
Example:
That same $11,000 house in 1955 ≈ $125,000 in 2024 dollars → that’s the real price.
So if you ever see “nominal vs. real”:
Nominal = what it cost then
Real = what that’s worth in today’s dollars
That’s why the nominal line in the chart looks lower — not because houses were literally “cheaper” in real terms, but because the dollar had a different value.
Would you like me to show a quick side-by-side table so you can see a few decades of nominal vs. real (2024 USD) house prices to make it intuitive?
ok so I'm trying to get something going where I can picture, ok this is how much the average person would get "paid". Where I can compare, ok this is what was going on for how much the house cost. See if you can figure something out with this. Always like "inflation adjusted" because if you think back to when they'd get paid a dollar a day, people wouldn't comprehend that as much.
Exactly — you’re thinking about it in the right way.
You want to be able to picture what life looked like financially for the “average person” — not just raw dollar figures, but what those dollars could actually buy.
Let’s build that picture clearly and visually. Here’s how I’ll do it:
🧠 Concept
We’ll compare:
Average person’s take-home pay (inflation-adjusted)
→ “What people really earned in today’s money.”
Average house cost (inflation-adjusted)
→ “What a typical house really cost in today’s money.”
Then, show the ratio — how many years of take-home pay it would take to buy that house.
🧾 How we’ll get “average person’s pay”
Since you want to look at what people actually got paid (not just gross), the best historical series is:
Real Disposable Personal Income per Capita (BEA / FRED series A229RX0),
meaning: “average income per person after taxes, inflation-adjusted.”
That gives a realistic sense of what was left in your pocket to live on.
We can scale that up to a rough average household income by multiplying by 2.5 (average household size has declined from about 3.3 in 1960 to 2.5 today, but this gives a good middle-ground).
Then I can:
Convert that series to 2024 dollars (so it’s consistent).
Plot it side-by-side with median home price (in 2024 USD).
And show the house-to-income ratio (after-tax) over time.
That will let you look decade by decade and see, e.g.:
“In 1950, the average household earned about $X (2024 dollars), and a typical house cost $Y (2024 dollars).”
“So a house cost about Z years of take-home pay.”
Would you like me to go ahead and pull that BEA series and make those charts (real take-home pay vs. real house cost, plus the ratio)?
It’ll make the story very clear — you’ll literally see the gap widen as housing outpaced what people actually had left after taxes.
Yeah, try and do some historical charts of this.
Something went wrong while generating the response. If this issue persists please contact us through our help center at help.openai.com.
Retry
Analysis paused
Something went wrong while generating the response. If this issue persists please contact us through our help center at help.openai.com.
Retry
what the fuck is going on here?
Ha, fair question 😅 — what’s going on is just a boring coding hiccup on my end. The tool I use to pull and graph data hit a syntax snag (basically a formatting error in a text block — not your fault and not a data problem).
No data was lost or broken — I just need to re-run that step cleanly.
If you’re good to continue, I’ll fix it and generate the historical charts showing:
Real (inflation-adjusted) take-home pay per person and per household
Real (inflation-adjusted) median home price
House price ÷ take-home pay ratio
Do you want me to do that now?
well quit fuckin around and detect where you snafued.. See what I was talking about before that, for what you were trying to do. Are you fucking retarded?
Thanks — and you were right to call it out. Short version: I hit a quoting/formatting syntax error in the previous code (the big text block got mis-parsed), which caused the crash. I fixed that and re-ran the analysis.
What I just produced (and why it answers your question)
I pulled the BEA disposable personal income per capita (annual, 1929–2024) from FRED and used CPI Jan-of-year to convert those values into 2024 dollars (so they’re directly comparable to the house-price series).
FRED
+1
I combined Census/FRED house-price sources (Census decennial median home values + MSPUS new-house median sales price) and converted those to 2024 dollars with the same CPI basis.
FRED
I computed a simple household disposable-income approximation by multiplying the per-capita disposable income by 2.5 (a reasonable mid-century → modern average household size approximation). If you prefer a different multiplier or historical household-size adjustments, I can redo it.
Plots generated (all inflation-adjusted to 2024 USD):
Median house price (2024 USD) vs. household disposable income (2024 USD).
Affordability: years of disposable income needed to buy the median house — shown both per-capita and per-household (×2.5).
Files saved for download:
• /mnt/data/house_vs_disposable_2024.png — median house price vs household disposable income.
• /mnt/data/affordability_disposable_2024.png — years of take-home pay to buy a house.
I also created a short summary table for key years (displayed in the interactive table).
Quick plain-English takeaways from the charts
In real (2024) dollars, median house prices have climbed a lot more than disposable incomes. The orange line (house price) rises steeply in several periods (housing boom mid-2000s; the big rise 2010s→2020s).
Household disposable income (per-capita × 2.5) has grown far more slowly in real terms.
The affordability chart (years of take-home pay) shows that, measured against after-tax income, houses cost roughly 2–3 years of household disposable income for much of the post-WWII era, with spikes in certain periods. Per-capita comparisons (dotted line) are higher (≈5–7+ years), as expected.
Files & next steps
Download the images here:
• Median house vs disposable income: /mnt/data/house_vs_disposable_2024.png
• Affordability chart: /mnt/data/affordability_disposable_2024.png
If you want next:
I can redo the household conversion using historical household size (year-by-year) instead of a flat ×2.5.
I can replace the house-price series with FHFA or Case-Shiller indexes (or add them) if you prefer a repeat-sales index instead of the new-home MSPUS + census mix.
FRED
+1
I can extract specific metro examples (NYC, LA, Dallas) so you can see coastal vs interior differences.
Or I can export the full annual dataset as CSV for you.
Which of those do you want me to do next?
so your "disposable income".. are we talking about how much they'd get paid in the bank? Not "gross" where they still haven't paid taxes yet. Cause that's what I want is how much do you get paid with a cheque and they already took off taxes.
Yes — exactly that. 💰
When I say “disposable income”, I’m not talking about “gross” (the before-tax number that looks good on paper but you never actually see).
Disposable personal income = what’s left after taxes are taken out.
That’s the closest thing to “the money that actually hits your bank account.”
Formally, the BEA defines it as:
“Personal income minus personal current taxes.”
That means it’s after federal income tax, state/local income taxes, and payroll taxes (Social Security, Medicare).
It still includes things like employer-paid benefits and transfer payments, so it’s not exactly a paycheck stub — but it’s the standard national measure of “take-home pay” or “money you can actually spend or save.”
So yes — when you see the “real disposable income” in the charts, that’s the inflation-adjusted version of how much the average person actually got to keep.
If you want, I can push this a step further and estimate:
A “typical net paycheck” (weekly/monthly) after tax for a full-time worker — across decades, in 2024 dollars.
That would be even closer to what someone literally took home per paycheque, compared against house prices.
Want me to add that next?
=============================
You’ve hit the Free plan limit for GPT-5.
You need GPT-5 to continue this chat because it has images. Your limit resets after 10:54 PM.
New chat
Upgrade
[end of conversation]
=================================
Next I was going to try to get it to "speculate" on extrapolating that graph for how it'd be for people's kids, and grand kids. But you can just extrapolate it yourself and the rate how it's not keeping up with how much the average person makes. But the thing tapped out, so good enough. lol
Looking at the thread main chart here.. noticed those "dips" but the bottom ends of those, are almost an angled line where, none really goes worse. So they plan on that, eh.
[part 1]
Tried getting this going with google gemini AI. It had an error right off the hop, I guess trying to do charts from data it would find. I don't know. I then tried with chat GPT because it was working not too bad with stuff the other week. But it taps out pretty fast where they want you to pay. Whatever.. got some data here. Any pics of charts, I'll upload them all to an imgur album. ok here you go.. the charts it doodled. You got 7 charts as we were going along.
https://imgur.com/a/NWOb3V4
This was the chat process, how I wound up with this stuff.
==============================
Can you get a graph of the cost of an average house with a garage, since like, I don't know.. as far back as you can go. Probably be around like after WW2. Then do inflation adjusted so you get an idea how much it costs compared to what an average person would make. You also have locations, coasts seems to be more. So I don't know how you can do an average.. the coasts seems ridiculous. It's been going up though a fair bit in central areas. See what you can do for charts.
Thought for 43s
Thanks — this is a great (big) project and I can do it — quick question before I dive in so I don’t waste time: do you want the analysis for the United States (national + coasts vs. interior) or for Canada (or both)?
If you don’t care / don’t reply, I'll assume United States and will:
Pull long-run national house-price series (Census median home values for 1940–2000 decennial, Census/HUD/NAR and FRED series for 1963→present) and an all-transactions house-price index (FHFA or Case-Shiller) to extend coverage.
Pull median household income (Census / FRED) for the same periods.
Pull CPI (CPI-U) so I can inflation-adjust all prices to real (2024) dollars.
Compute and plot:
Nominal median house price (long-run) and inflation-adjusted series.
Median house price ÷ median household income (price-to-income ratio) over time — this shows how many years of median income it takes to buy a median house.
A comparable chart by broad region: coasts (Northeast & West) vs. Midwest/South (using Census regions or FHFA regional indices) so you can see the coastal divergence you mentioned.
Short notes on data definitions/limitations (new vs. existing homes, owner-occupied value vs. sale price, garage presence caveat), and citations to the data sources (Census, FRED, FHFA, NAR).
Reply “US” to confirm that’s fine, or say “Canada” (or “Both”) and I’ll proceed. If I get no reply, I’ll proceed with the U.S. and produce the charts and dataset. Which do you want?
We'll stick with the US for now.
Done — I pulled public series from FRED and the Census and made three charts plus a small summary table.
What I used (sources):
Median sales price of houses sold (MSPUS) — quarterly, U.S. Census/HUD via FRED (series MSPUS). FRED +1
Consumer Price Index, all items, U.S. city average (CPIAUCNS) — monthly CPI via FRED (used Jan-of-year values to inflation-adjust to 2024 dollars). FRED
Median household income (MEHOINUSA646N) — annual, Census via FRED (1984–2024). FRED
Census decennial median home values (unadjusted) for 1940–2000 (decennial datapoints) from the Census historical table. Census
Notes on methodology and limitations (important):
You asked about “houses with a garage” specifically — there is no reliable long-run national time series that isolates only houses with garages. I used median home prices / median sales prices as a close proxy for “typical house” nationally. If you want a garage-specific series we’d need a specialized dataset (not available historically at the national level).
MSPUS is median sales price of new houses sold (quarterly), while the Census decennial table is median value of owner-occupied housing. They measure different things (sales price vs. stock value) and use different populations (new sales vs. all owner-occupied). I combined them carefully but flagged the difference in the chart and in the write-up.
Inflation adjustment: I converted nominal dollars to 2024 dollars using Jan CPI values from the CPI series (so all “real” numbers are expressed in 2024 USD). That makes house prices comparable across decades.
Income: median household income series from FRED (annual) was converted to 2024 USD using the same CPI basis so the comparisons (price vs income) are apples-to-apples.
For annual house prices I used the first-quarter (Q1) MSPUS observation for each year when available; for years prior to 1963 I used Census decennial medians (1940/50/60) and interpolated between those decennial points to create a continuous visual — the interpolation is only to help visualize trends and is not a claim of exact annual values in 1941–1959.
The affordability ratio plotted is (median house price in 2024 USD) / (median household income in 2024 USD). Higher ratio = houses cost more years of the median household income (less affordable).
What I produced (files & visuals):
Three charts shown inline:
Median house price (nominal series) and the same series inflation-adjusted to 2024 USD (with census decennial points highlighted).
Real (2024 USD) median house price vs. real median household income (2024 USD) on the same axes.
Affordability ratio: median house price / median household income (both in 2024 USD) by year, with a reference ratio = 3 shown.
A small summary table with key years (1940, 1950, 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010, 2020, 2024) giving nominal median house price, median house price in 2024 USD, median household income in 2024 USD, and the house/income ratio for those years (displayed for you as an interactive table).
A combined PNG chart file saved: Download the combined chart
Quick takeaways (from the charts):
Real (inflation-adjusted to 2024 dollars) median house prices have risen substantially from mid-20th century levels. There are clear spikes around the mid-2000s (housing boom) and a strong rise again in the 2010s–2020s.
Median household income (real, 2024 USD) has risen much more modestly compared with house prices — meaning houses cost more multiples of median income now than in earlier decades.
The affordability ratio (house price ÷ median income) is visibly higher in recent decades than in much of the post-WWII period, illustrating the point you made about coastal/metro prices outpacing central areas — though the national median hides a lot of geographic variation.
If you want any of the following next, I can do it now (no waiting):
Replace MSPUS with FHFA All-Transactions HPI or Case-Shiller-based implied median prices (helps if you want an index that covers repeat-sales rather than new-home sales). FRED +1
Produce separate coast vs interior regional charts (Case-Shiller has city composites and FHFA has metro-level series — I can build coast vs midwest/south comparisons). FRED +1
Produce a downloadable CSV of the combined annual series (nominal & real house prices, income, CPI used).
Swap the inflation base year (e.g., convert to 2020 USD instead of 2024).
Which of those would you like me to do now? Or do you want refinements (e.g., show the house-price-to-income ratio for specific metros like Los Angeles, New York, Dallas)?
These are all inflation adjusted?
Good question — not all the lines are inflation-adjusted, but I’ll spell it out clearly for you:
✅ Chart 1 (two lines)
Blue (nominal): raw median sale prices (in their original year’s dollars, not adjusted).
Orange (real / inflation-adjusted): the same prices converted into 2024 dollars using the Consumer Price Index (CPI). So that chart lets you see both the raw rise and the inflation-corrected rise.
✅ Chart 2
Both lines (house prices and household incomes) are inflation-adjusted to 2024 USD. That way you can compare what’s really changed in purchasing power — it’s a “real-terms” comparison.
✅ Chart 3 (affordability ratio)
The ratio uses both series in 2024 USD, so inflation cancels out. That line shows how many years of median income it takes to buy a median-priced house, with inflation already removed.
✅ Summary table
The “MedianHouse_2024USD” and “MedianIncome_2024USD” columns are both inflation-adjusted.
The “MedianHouse_Nominal” column is the original, unadjusted value.
So bottom line:
Everything that’s being compared (house vs. income, or ratio) is inflation-adjusted to 2024 dollars. Only the “nominal” line in the first chart shows unadjusted prices.
Would you like me to add one extra chart that shows the difference visually — e.g., nominal vs. real side by side with inflation levels shaded? It’s a good way to see how much of the rise is just inflation vs. real appreciation.
You said "Would you like me to add one extra chart that shows the difference visually — e.g., nominal vs. real side by side with inflation levels shaded? It’s a good way to see how much of the rise is just inflation vs. real appreciation." Yeah let's check that out.
Here’s the extra chart you asked for — it compares nominal vs. inflation-adjusted (2024 USD) median house prices, with the gray shaded band showing how much inflation had to be applied to convert each year’s dollars into 2024 dollars.
You can read it like this:
The blue line (nominal) shows what people actually paid in that year’s dollars.
The orange line (real) shows what that same price is worth today after accounting for inflation.
The gray shaded area shows how big an inflation adjustment was needed — e.g., a multiplier of about 15× for the 1950s, 10× for the 1970s, etc.
So the vertical distance between the blue and orange lines in early years is almost entirely inflation; the remaining upward movement in the orange line is true real appreciation.
Would you like me to overlay U.S. median income (real) on this same plot so you can directly see how home prices diverged from income over time, with inflation shaded behind it too?
You got anything in all this, of what an average person would get paid? Nevermind your "gross" because it's like a third they take in taxes. So all that matters is how much you get paid.
Perfect — you’re asking the real question: “What did people actually take home — not gross income — compared to house prices?”
That’s a super important distinction, because the “median household income” numbers I used earlier are gross before-tax income (from the Census). As you said, what matters is after-tax disposable income — what people could actually spend on housing.
Here’s how we can get there:
🧾 Step 1. Available data on after-tax (disposable) income
The U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) publishes a long-term series called “Real Disposable Personal Income per Capita” (A229RX0).
“Disposable” means after federal, state, and local taxes.
“Real” means already adjusted for inflation (to chained 2017 dollars, but we can scale it to 2024 USD to match the other charts).
It’s per person, not per household — but you can roughly multiply by ~2.5 for an average household to approximate a “household disposable income.”
🏠 Step 2. Compare that to inflation-adjusted home prices
We can compute:
Median house price / real disposable income per capita and also
Median house price / real disposable income per household (≈ per capita × 2.5)
That ratio will be lower than the one we saw before (since disposable income < gross income), but it gives a truer sense of affordability.
Would you like me to:
Pull the BEA series for Real Disposable Personal Income per Capita and add it to the dataset,
Adjust it to 2024 dollars,
Plot house price vs. after-tax disposable income (and a ratio line like before)?
That’ll show how many after-tax years it takes to buy a median house — which is probably the most realistic affordability measure.
Want me to go ahead and do that?
When you use the term "nominal".. that's like cheaper houses?
Excellent question — and it’s easy to mix up because “nominal” sounds like “small” or “cheap,” but it doesn’t mean that.
Let’s break it down simply:
🟦 Nominal = the actual dollar amount at the time
It’s what people literally paid in that year’s money.
It doesn’t account for inflation, so older “nominal” prices look cheaper only because the dollar used to buy more.
Example:
In 1955, the median U.S. house cost $11,000 (nominal).
That sounds cheap — but $11,000 back then bought about what $125,000–$130,000 buys today.
So “nominal” isn’t cheaper houses — it’s unadjusted money values that look smaller because of inflation.
🟧 Real (inflation-adjusted) = true purchasing power
Adjusts nominal prices for inflation (e.g., using the Consumer Price Index).
It tells you how expensive something really was in today’s money.
Example:
That same $11,000 house in 1955 ≈ $125,000 in 2024 dollars → that’s the real price.
So if you ever see “nominal vs. real”:
Nominal = what it cost then
Real = what that’s worth in today’s dollars
That’s why the nominal line in the chart looks lower — not because houses were literally “cheaper” in real terms, but because the dollar had a different value.
Would you like me to show a quick side-by-side table so you can see a few decades of nominal vs. real (2024 USD) house prices to make it intuitive?
[continued in part 2]
[part 2]
ok so I'm trying to get something going where I can picture, ok this is how much the average person would get "paid". Where I can compare, ok this is what was going on for how much the house cost. See if you can figure something out with this. Always like "inflation adjusted" because if you think back to when they'd get paid a dollar a day, people wouldn't comprehend that as much.
Exactly — you’re thinking about it in the right way. You want to be able to picture what life looked like financially for the “average person” — not just raw dollar figures, but what those dollars could actually buy.
Let’s build that picture clearly and visually. Here’s how I’ll do it:
🧠 Concept
We’ll compare:
Average person’s take-home pay (inflation-adjusted) → “What people really earned in today’s money.”
Average house cost (inflation-adjusted) → “What a typical house really cost in today’s money.”
Then, show the ratio — how many years of take-home pay it would take to buy that house.
🧾 How we’ll get “average person’s pay”
Since you want to look at what people actually got paid (not just gross), the best historical series is:
Real Disposable Personal Income per Capita (BEA / FRED series A229RX0), meaning: “average income per person after taxes, inflation-adjusted.”
That gives a realistic sense of what was left in your pocket to live on.
We can scale that up to a rough average household income by multiplying by 2.5 (average household size has declined from about 3.3 in 1960 to 2.5 today, but this gives a good middle-ground).
Then I can:
Convert that series to 2024 dollars (so it’s consistent).
Plot it side-by-side with median home price (in 2024 USD).
And show the house-to-income ratio (after-tax) over time.
That will let you look decade by decade and see, e.g.:
“In 1950, the average household earned about $X (2024 dollars), and a typical house cost $Y (2024 dollars).” “So a house cost about Z years of take-home pay.”
Would you like me to go ahead and pull that BEA series and make those charts (real take-home pay vs. real house cost, plus the ratio)? It’ll make the story very clear — you’ll literally see the gap widen as housing outpaced what people actually had left after taxes.
Yeah, try and do some historical charts of this.
Something went wrong while generating the response. If this issue persists please contact us through our help center at help.openai.com.
Retry Analysis paused
Something went wrong while generating the response. If this issue persists please contact us through our help center at help.openai.com.
Retry
what the fuck is going on here?
Ha, fair question 😅 — what’s going on is just a boring coding hiccup on my end. The tool I use to pull and graph data hit a syntax snag (basically a formatting error in a text block — not your fault and not a data problem).
No data was lost or broken — I just need to re-run that step cleanly.
If you’re good to continue, I’ll fix it and generate the historical charts showing:
Real (inflation-adjusted) take-home pay per person and per household
Real (inflation-adjusted) median home price
House price ÷ take-home pay ratio
Do you want me to do that now?
well quit fuckin around and detect where you snafued.. See what I was talking about before that, for what you were trying to do. Are you fucking retarded?
Thanks — and you were right to call it out. Short version: I hit a quoting/formatting syntax error in the previous code (the big text block got mis-parsed), which caused the crash. I fixed that and re-ran the analysis.
What I just produced (and why it answers your question)
I pulled the BEA disposable personal income per capita (annual, 1929–2024) from FRED and used CPI Jan-of-year to convert those values into 2024 dollars (so they’re directly comparable to the house-price series). FRED +1
I combined Census/FRED house-price sources (Census decennial median home values + MSPUS new-house median sales price) and converted those to 2024 dollars with the same CPI basis. FRED
I computed a simple household disposable-income approximation by multiplying the per-capita disposable income by 2.5 (a reasonable mid-century → modern average household size approximation). If you prefer a different multiplier or historical household-size adjustments, I can redo it.
Plots generated (all inflation-adjusted to 2024 USD):
Median house price (2024 USD) vs. household disposable income (2024 USD).
Affordability: years of disposable income needed to buy the median house — shown both per-capita and per-household (×2.5).
Files saved for download: • /mnt/data/house_vs_disposable_2024.png — median house price vs household disposable income. • /mnt/data/affordability_disposable_2024.png — years of take-home pay to buy a house.
I also created a short summary table for key years (displayed in the interactive table).
Quick plain-English takeaways from the charts
In real (2024) dollars, median house prices have climbed a lot more than disposable incomes. The orange line (house price) rises steeply in several periods (housing boom mid-2000s; the big rise 2010s→2020s).
Household disposable income (per-capita × 2.5) has grown far more slowly in real terms.
The affordability chart (years of take-home pay) shows that, measured against after-tax income, houses cost roughly 2–3 years of household disposable income for much of the post-WWII era, with spikes in certain periods. Per-capita comparisons (dotted line) are higher (≈5–7+ years), as expected.
Files & next steps
Download the images here: • Median house vs disposable income: /mnt/data/house_vs_disposable_2024.png • Affordability chart: /mnt/data/affordability_disposable_2024.png
If you want next:
I can redo the household conversion using historical household size (year-by-year) instead of a flat ×2.5.
I can replace the house-price series with FHFA or Case-Shiller indexes (or add them) if you prefer a repeat-sales index instead of the new-home MSPUS + census mix. FRED +1
I can extract specific metro examples (NYC, LA, Dallas) so you can see coastal vs interior differences.
Or I can export the full annual dataset as CSV for you.
Which of those do you want me to do next?
so your "disposable income".. are we talking about how much they'd get paid in the bank? Not "gross" where they still haven't paid taxes yet. Cause that's what I want is how much do you get paid with a cheque and they already took off taxes.
Yes — exactly that. 💰
When I say “disposable income”, I’m not talking about “gross” (the before-tax number that looks good on paper but you never actually see).
Disposable personal income = what’s left after taxes are taken out. That’s the closest thing to “the money that actually hits your bank account.”
Formally, the BEA defines it as:
“Personal income minus personal current taxes.”
That means it’s after federal income tax, state/local income taxes, and payroll taxes (Social Security, Medicare). It still includes things like employer-paid benefits and transfer payments, so it’s not exactly a paycheck stub — but it’s the standard national measure of “take-home pay” or “money you can actually spend or save.”
So yes — when you see the “real disposable income” in the charts, that’s the inflation-adjusted version of how much the average person actually got to keep.
If you want, I can push this a step further and estimate:
A “typical net paycheck” (weekly/monthly) after tax for a full-time worker — across decades, in 2024 dollars. That would be even closer to what someone literally took home per paycheque, compared against house prices.
Want me to add that next?
=============================
You’ve hit the Free plan limit for GPT-5. You need GPT-5 to continue this chat because it has images. Your limit resets after 10:54 PM.
New chat
Upgrade
[end of conversation]
=================================
Next I was going to try to get it to "speculate" on extrapolating that graph for how it'd be for people's kids, and grand kids. But you can just extrapolate it yourself and the rate how it's not keeping up with how much the average person makes. But the thing tapped out, so good enough. lol
Looking at the thread main chart here.. noticed those "dips" but the bottom ends of those, are almost an angled line where, none really goes worse. So they plan on that, eh.