I think his point is, that’s not the point - it’s about housing costs, which factor in homeowners and renters with rent control. So I actually read the study, and it’s not concerned with housing costs so much as it is with making the point that in housing policy discussions we discount the impact of transportation costs in costs of living. The thesis of the article is basically, “Hey, New Yorkers currently face a burden of housing and transportation that compares quite favorably to other major cities, but if we don’t focus on containing transportation costs, then the cost of living in NYC will rise relative to other cities.” That’s a valid argument even if you disagree with the conclusion. My problem is the use of the word affordability. The broad range of housing costs of course factors into whether one considers their current living situation affordable. But I think most think of affordability as prospective, as defining my range of options for any given choice. In the case of housing, we think of housing prices. But housing costs aren’t necessarily market prices, and pulling the percentage of household income spent on housing doesn’t necessarily tell me about affordability - I’m not sure that without any other context, the number tells me anything at all. The study implies that DC, San Jose and San Francisco are some of the most affordable cities. That’s absurd. In the case of SF, I’d say that if people really are only spending 40% of their income on housing and transportation (and 30% for professional families), it’s just because they can, either because they are rent controlled from before the boom or that 400k job at Google allows them. A recent CA Association of Realtors study found that only something like 15% of the city could afford the $1.7M median home price. The $3,600 median rent would take over half of the median income. If that doesn’t work, you just don’t do it. But I don’t think anyone would call the current situation, regardless of what the study implies, “affordable.”