>It is also improper to ignore cost of living. House prices can differ by a factor of 20, not even counting the collapsing locations. Just the difference between San Francisco and a medium-small non-coastal southern city is that much.

This isn't correct at all; you're totally overstating the CoL differences. If a decent apartment in the Bay Area costs as much as $3k/month (I'm guessing here), there's no way in hell you're going to find a comparable place anywhere in the country for $150/month. In my experience, cost-of-living just doesn't differ as much between places as people like you claim it does. What does differ is price-per-square-foot, but no one realistically expects to live in a giant McMansion in the Bay Area or Manhattan as a middle-class person. The problem with "low cost" areas is that they typically don't have any actual inexpensive places for single people or childless couples, and your options are usually either a house that's much too large with huge utility costs, or a trailer park surrounded by opioid and meth addicts.

Actually no, I'm understating the CoL differences. I have relatives in both types of location, so I know. I'll pick some examples from their neighborhoods. (and yes, they do have jobs, including tech jobs) It's making excuses to say that "no one realistically expects to live in a giant McMansion in the Bay Area or Manhattan as a middle-class person", because that sucks. Real houses rent for more than double your guess. Don't expect me to believe that you won't be "surrounded by opioid and meth addicts" in the Bay Area. There are needles, tents, and poop on the streets.

In the middle of San Francisco, at 200 Amber Dr, a house sold in January for $2,450,000. It isn't anything special, at just 2020 square feet. It, frankly, looks ugly and unlivable. It's some old trash from 1962 on a lot that is measured in square feet! Converting that 3149 square feet gives just 0.07229 acres. It's a joke of a little house that should have been bulldozed by 1985. BTW, it would rent for about $7,500 per month.

In much of the country 1/20 of that ($122,500) would get you a similar house on a 0.14 to 0.30 acre lot. Let's see...

You can get 3021 square feet on 0.68 acres for $130,000 in Cocoa, FL. It's older. OTOH, you get more bathrooms. Note the 50% extra floor space and nearly 10x property size.

You can get 1652 square feet for $122,900 in Melbourne, FL. It's being built in a 55+ community by a developer. It'll come with all sorts of community extras, including a lake for fishing.

You can get 4992 square feet on 0.3 acres for $150,000 in Georgetown, KY. There are 7 bedrooms and 4 bathrooms. It comes with beautiful wood floors, high ceilings, a partially spiral staircase, and a fireplace. It's right on Main Street.

You can get 1904 square feet on 5 acres for $89,900 in Georgetown, KY. It's a manufactured home. There is a brook (stream) on the property! You could go hunting with an AR-15 in your backyard. Again, it's 5 acres, and look at that price.

You can get 1987 square feet on 0.1436 acres for $134,900 in Fairborn, OH.

You can get 1976 square feet on 0.41 acres for $115,000 in Beavercreek, OH.

You can get 1920 square feet on 0.1015 acres for $48,900 in Dayton, OH. It does have that icky city feel, being 500 feet from a large park and 750 feet from a damn bus stop, but evidently you wouldn't object.

BTW, while looking for houses I stumbled across trash in Dayton, OH. One is a 4-unit place with the units renting for $300 to $390 per month. The whole thing can be owned for $99,900. A similar place going for $129,900 has 3 units renting for an average of $458 per month.

You're still sidestepping my argument altogether, jumping from renting prices to sale prices. I don't want to buy a house. How much does it cost to rent in the Bay Area, and elsewhere; is it a 20x difference? I don't think so.

I see this in the DC area where I live. It's perfectly possible to rent a very nice place for 1500-2000/month. It's totally impossible to rent anyplace decent in the country for $75-100/month (a 20x difference).

Well DC isn't "Bay Area or Manhattan", so you're sidestepping my argument by jumping from one location to another.

There I guess you'd want to be in Arlington or Alexandria, less than 1000 feet from a Metro stop. DC itself, at least the residential parts that don't need a car, is far from decent. In any case it clearly isn't "Bay Area or Manhattan".

Rent prices normally track house prices. Except during the steep parts of a bubble and crash, you can compute one from the other. One expense is thus a proxy for the other.

I'm pretty sure your "very nice place" isn't so nice. First of all, rentals are fundamentally inferior. Second of all, I doubt you are getting equivalent size. (indoor space, parking spots, land) Third of all, the cheap parts of cities are horribly violent.

In any case, I never said 20x would apply to DC.