There are many mistakes here.

The population numbers you have reported are misleading because they use 5 year estimated numbers. The better estimate is 993,588.

The population actually grew from 2021.

Even if you were right, the rents fell down by more than 19% after accounting for inflation. I’m not sure what you are trying to say?

▲

cyberax 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> The population numbers you have reported are misleading because they use 5 year estimated numbers.

I specifically chose consistent data series. While each one of them can't represent the true population, they absolutely do illustrate the trend. The number you're quoting is from the Census, which only happens at 10 year intervals.

If you have better population estimates for these years that use the same consistent methodology, I'm all ears.

> Even if you were right, the rents fell down by more than 19% after accounting for inflation. I’m not sure what you are trying to say?

In SF rents fell even more. Without significant new construction.

Why?

	▲	simianwords 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> I specifically chose consistent data series. While each one of them can't represent the true population, they absolutely do illustrate the trend. The number you're quoting is from the Census, which only happens at 10 year intervals. False. You are comparing 5 year estimates with 1 year estimates so it’s not consistent. With SF I agree that it went down because of population but I’m not sure how that explains 19% reduction in rents in Austin with higher population.