The new standard of the NY Times: Same as everyone else - Complete bullshit

I just finished an article from the New York Times regarding the affordability of housing across the country and I must confess that I am now very close to writing off this newspaper that I once thought rather highly of. It would seem that the Times has reduced itself to shoveling out the same kind of bullshit that most of us have come to expect from places like Fox News.

The article goes on to compare housing costs of today with those of 20 years ago when interest rates were among the highest in history and makes the claim that housing today is more affordable overall. In other words, they're still trying to perpetuate the over-inflated housing market that is being almost solely driven by continued low interest rates.

Now most b.s. stories rely on ommission or slanting of facts and figures to make their point, but what is interesting to point out in this case is that the article presents all the facts needed to come to the definitive conclusion that the writer is full of SHIT!!

For whomever is interested, here is a link to the article in question:
http://nytimes.com/2005/12/29/realestate/29afford.html?hp&ex=1135918800&en=915d811937ffbff1&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Long story short, it points out that a particualr survey found that on average American families are devoting about 23% of the "family" income to paying their mortgages. This is cited as being better than the 30+% that was being devoted to the cause in the 80s. However, note the use of the term family income. We all know that the number of families that are dual and even triple income families has skyrocketed over the past 20 years. Keep this in mind for the next part.

The article later cites that the average salary has also risen on average by about 50%. This is where you should start scratching your head. If most families are, in fact, two income households, then that would mean that American families should have roughly 100% more income than they did in the 80s. I can buy that part. What stumps me is how those same families are only managing to divert a meager 7% or so more away from their mortgage payments.

Furthermore, the article points out that places like California, New York, and Washington are notable exceptions to the trend as skyrocketing prices there are consuming about half of family incomes and people there are making even more money!!!

Last but not least, this bonehead also has the nerve to claim that people are getting more house for their money these days because the houses they are buying are generally bigger than in past years. Boy, people really do have short memories. In the past generations, when you bought a house, you usually bought it along with this stuff we like to call land, and believe it not the land was what held the real value, and not the stupid house sitting on it.

As usual, I could go on for quite a while shooting holes in this blatant attempt to further the economy at the expense of poor young couples trying to get their lives started the right way and not neck deep in debt, but I think you all get the point.

The obvious message here is to mind what you read and if you have a subscription to the NY Times, CANCEL IT!!!