Oranges may have become cheaper in relative terms, but property sure hasn't. In many parts of the world property is more inaccessible than ever before for similar social economic groups.
That's just artificial scarcity, right? Rural property out in the woods is just as cheap as its ever been, in my experience. Cities just have a lot of laws preventing a lot of things, but I think most people who choose to live in cities prefer it like that.
I'm not sure the relevance of it being artificial or not is here. The reality is that many people in their 20s and 30s can't buy a house, while their parents could, even if their parents were less affluent by many measures, say in orange purchasing power.
Leaving NYC, even after taking a pay cut, was one of the best decisions I ever made. I don't have data, but I suspect that for young folks outside of the largest 20 American cities, if they didn't have on average 40k in student loan debt, they would have more purchasing power then previous generations even including real estate.
That's also partly because you can't hardly buy a newly constructed house unless it's 3000+ sq feet, whereas houses from decades ago were substantially smaller, leading to more affordability. The lack of these houses does not imply that people currently in their 20s and 30s are less affluent, just that there is less affordable housing.
Maybe.But Germany has cities but they created a political system(after ww2) optimized for cheap real-estate , and they do have fine cities, while their real-estate prices has Rose neglibly over the last few decades.
Cities also have jobs. I don't see many postings for positions out in the middle of the woods. Certainly not enough to sustain all the people who would be needing to go there in order to have property.