Montana’s housing market listed as least affordable in entire US — Recent reports and analyses have painted a stark picture of housing affordability in Montana as of 2024.
The National Association of Realtors came out with a report that listed Montana as the least affordable state in the entire country, based on its Affordability Distribution Curve.
See below:
Housing Affordability Index:
Metrics like these used by various economic analyses and housing market overviews suggest that Montana’s housing market has become increasingly unaffordable. This isn’t just a local concern but positions Montana as having one of the least affordable housing markets in the U.S..
When you look at income requirements, affording a typical home in Montana, which might not even be a standalone house but could include town-homes or similar, a household now needs to earn significantly over what was required just a few years ago. Income needed to buy a home in Montana has seen one of the sharpest increases nationwide, with figures suggesting an annual income well over $100,000 might be necessary for a median-priced home.
Market Dynamics:
The surge in housing prices can be attributed to several factors including an influx of out-of-state buyers, retirees, and remote workers seeking Montana’s lifestyle and natural beauty. This has driven demand, pushing prices up beyond the reach of many long-term residents or new entrants into the housing market who aren’t from higher-income brackets.
Policy and Market Responses:
There’s recognition of the issue at the state level, with legislative efforts to address affordability through funding mechanisms, zoning changes, and investment in affordable housing projects. However, the implementation and impact of these policies might take time to reflect in the market, and there’s debate over whether these measures address the root causes or merely the symptoms.
Public sentiment is pessimistic at best. There’s a clear frustration and concern among Montana residents about housing becoming a luxury rather than a basic need. Discussions range from the impact on community makeup, where only the wealthy or those with significant external income can afford to buy or rent, to the broader socio-economic effects this trend might have on Montana’s future.
While the overall trend is towards decreasing affordability, there are nuances. Certain areas or types of housing might still offer relative affordability, especially away from major urban centers or desirable tourist spots. However, the general trajectory, unless significantly altered by policy or market correction, suggests continued pressure on affordability.
The scenario here in Montana reflects broader national trends of housing becoming less affordable due to a combination of low supply, high demand, and economic factors like interest rates. Yet, our case here in the state is exacerbated by our unique appeal, leading to what some might call a real estate boom that’s outpacing income growth for many of our residents and thus resulting in Montana’s housing market listed as least affordable in entire US.
Pepsi tasted better in glass bottles
Pepsi tasted better in glass bottles — Some people might consider the taste of Pepsi from a glass bottle as a *perception, but the science might say otherwise. Pepsi and other delightfully fizzy soft drinks actually did taste better.
Taste is much more than just a perception and here’s why:
Glass is inert, meaning it doesn’t react chemically with the contents. This ensures that the taste of Pepsi isn’t altered by the container material, unlike plastic bottles or aluminum cans which can slightly affect the flavor due to trace interactions or the leaching of material compounds into the drink.
Glass bottles are less permeable to gases compared to plastic. This means carbon dioxide, which is responsible for the soda’s fizz, stays in the soda longer, preserving the sensation and flavor associated with freshly opened Pepsi. Over time, plastic bottles allow CO2 to escape, potentially making the soda taste flatter sooner.
Although not directly affecting taste, glass can keep beverages colder for longer if chilled beforehand, and temperature can influence how we perceive taste. A colder Pepsi might taste crisper and more refreshing.
There’s a nostalgic element to drinking from glass bottles, which might enhance the perceived taste experience. The ritual associated with glass bottles, like the sound of opening a bottle or the feel of glass, can psychologically impact how one tastes and enjoys the beverage.
Plastic bottles and cans can sometimes impart a very subtle taste to the beverage. Plastic can transfer acetaldehyde, which might alter the soda’s flavor slightly, and cans have a polymer lining that some claim can absorb or alter flavors. Glass doesn’t have these issues.
Glass bottles are often associated with a time when sodas might have been consumed more promptly after purchase, reducing the time for any potential degradation in taste. Also, the storage conditions for glass bottled sodas in the past might have been different, potentially in cooler, darker places which preserve taste better.
Over all it’s pretty clear that while the formula of Pepsi might not have changed, the container it comes in significantly impacts the drinking experience.
Today’s insights are based on consumer perception and nostalgia as much as they are on the physical properties of glass versus other materials.
The preference for glass might also reflect a broader appreciation for how beverages were consumed in the past, with possibly different recipes or natural ingredients like real sugar, which some argue also tasted better than today’s high fructose corn syrup or artificial sweeteners.
When you look at the science, Pepsi tasted better in glass bottles.