It's not uniform. The inflation of housing prices in SF over the last decade has averaged somewhere around 6% leading to a ~100% increase, way higher than the roughly 2% average inflation. But comparing a ~100% increase over a decade to a ~100% increase over a year is very misleading
except that there are houses in other places besides San Francisco.. and that those prices have volatility not seen in San Francisco.. is there is a motivated-reason behind defending the house prices here? projecting stability ?
I was using SF because it's known to have had a much higher house price inflation than other places, in order to try to be charitable to your case. If you look at the overall US housing market then you need to go back a lot further than a decade to see 100% inflation.
actually I tracked housing prices directly here in California on a large scale.. the key to resolving the two positions here is that, volatility is exactly how a one hundred percent increase in price happens.. first drop, the rise, then drop a lot, then rise alot. Meanwhile in the most desirable a.k.a. most expensive zip codes (or similar). the rise has been steady, even at 2008, and as you say, not one hundred percent. Lastly, ordinary people like you and I are not privileged to see the vast amount of cheating that goes on with residential valuation, loans and the like. Loans for more than a realistic value on a property, are as old as Sicily.
