Seems like they have opposing headlines on this topic every month. Just goes to show that you can use statistics to prove just about anything.
It is tough to figure out what means what, when both dailies rely on realtors for their data and analysis thereof. Dailies make a lot of their income from real estate ads, so they have little incentive to go outside that industry for perspective.
I feel like one of the articles might be excluding condos from their calculations ("houses" vs "homes") but I can't tell.
I think it means that, like most economic stories, it's too complicated to express in a headline (which is written by a different person than the article).
Realtor's associations send this articles and Times lackies just paraphrase.
Go to seattlebubble.com for a good analysis of what's actually going on.
Executive summary: the PI article is closer to the truth, but not quite pessimistic enough. The Times article is crack-smokin' nonsense.
In reality, sales are slowing drastically, and the "rising" home price is probably a statistical artifact.
acpymtws konvqty clirhw vnlropwz qlghx wlimugadz mupo
acpymtws konvqty clirhw vnlropwz qlghx wlimugadz mupo
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).