Some of the nicer areas holding up: That cannot be more misleading.
I’d put it crudely in numbers if I can.
At time line a, location 1 is at $x and location 2 is at $y.
At time line b, location 1 is at $x’ and location 2 is at $y’.
I’d venture to guess that, if external factors dont affect these locations x’/x will be equal to y’/y.
Of course one location may have had a new school, another location may have had a office complex and a highway, whatever, all that will add to or subract from the desirability and skew our math.
Of course if one location was much different than the other to start with, it may have seen the rush of one ethnic group or seen a huge proliferation of certain types of loans which when were suddenly made available caused it to surge …
AKA, for example higher priced areas may have had more liars loans. Better school district areas may have had more asians.
So the theory is:- Good or bad areas will retain their mathematical relation to each other unless external factors (be it market forces or demographic or waht not) change that “good” or “bad” level.
So nicer areas holding up well, just BS. maybe nicer areas had old money and old houses with people who lived in there for years and years and they didn’t use their house as a checking account. Not so nice areas, have had reconstruction, infill or other BS happen. AKA, market forces.
Cool.
Cow_tipping.
