313WX,
I doubt WM was directly comparing SF to Detroit but using it as an example of how a runaway RE market can lock potential first home buyers out forever. I would venture to say that most young residents in the bay area, including the Finance and Tech crowd, are relegated to renter status regardless of their earnings. The housing market there is extremely skewed and disproportionately off balance to earnings. Detroit on the other hand is the exact opposite. Again, apart from a few other major cities like East St Louis, Detroit offers enormous opportunity for first home buyers.

Regarding your last post, I would say it's you that is missing the point if you don't consider the numbers from an investment perspective. Not only did Detroit smash the suburbs on a % appreciation basis but also nominally. You could have easily purchased 10x "average" homes in Detroit or maybe just a few amounting to the average suburban home price and still have seen returns that eclipsed those in the burbs. IOW's, you're only limited by the amount you have saved, willing to spend or the amount a bank is willing to loan you. The scale is set.

These figures are real and would be celebrated by residents of any city globally, so why not Detroit? I doubt there's a financial advisor or investor who would disagree. The rest is opinion and bias but I will agree, Detroit has a long way to go to match the living standards of other major cities however, by the time the average suburban resident concedes and admits Detroit is worth investing/living in, they will likely be priced out by then. This is simple market psychology that dictates most have to be on the wrong side of the bet for opportunity to exist. I know that sounds strange but it makes total sense. Investors are rewarded for taking risk, especially contrarians. The opposite also applies. When the majority is overzealous, then you know the top is near. I believe Detroit is still viewed by the majority as risky and the prices reflect this.