Do you have the corresponding statistics (income percentiles vs. average house cost) for all areas in the US handy, allowing you to quickly determine this is not possible? Or do you not like the idea and therefore reject it?
because thats not the way debate works. you dont get to make a(n absurd) claim and then demand the other person disprove it with data across 100% of the spectrum.
I didn't say that this is how debates work. How they should work however:
> A: [some statement]
> B: I don't think that is the case. Could you share an example?
> A: [example]
See where nobody had to disprove anything with data across 100% of the spectrum? That's because nobody made the claim that A is wrong. You however made an absolute claim, so you have to provide the data for it.
* people in the area are not owning their houses, but (the companies owned by) people who live somewhere in Florida do (or the richer part of the same town)
* people bought their houses 40 years ago when it was still possible to do so, but would now be totally priced were they required to buy it now
* same but the rental equivalent for rent controlled apartments (or kind landlords)
* due to the interest rate increases, mortgages for new homes have increased rapidly, like even if the house price is the same as 1.5 years ago, the mortgage is now three times as much for the same down payment and duration.
> According to the stats, we make top 5% income of our area
Well one of those two things isnt true. It's not possible to be 95%ile income and not afford a house.