Even assuming your spending exactly tracts cost of living, ratio is only what's relevant if you're going to keep that same cost of living indefinitely. Often what matters more is the net.
Unless we remove the concept of land ownership, there aren’t many viable alternatives that don’t also have unwanted consequences.
At the root of the problem in your question is how does society determine who has a right to live where. Obviously, given the opportunity, most of the world would want to live with on the California coast or similar places.
Obviously, the most basic answer to the question I posed above is “might makes right”. But we have moved past a situation where fight someone to take their land, and instead have to buy it.
Yes, the current system is unfair for most people. Most people will never get a chance to live where they want, and most people are born without the chance in the first place. So why should society let those born to wealthy moms get the spoils?
There isn’t a good answer, other than a better alternative hasn’t been invented yet. But at least in the current scenario, a small percentage of people can move into the places they want, giving enough hope that people aren’t resorting to war. Or they are unable to.
> Unless we remove the concept of land ownership, there aren’t many viable alternatives that don’t also have unwanted consequences.
You can assess land rent (there are methods to do this that are quite reliable) and tax away, say, 80% of it, thus leaving in place enough of a market in land that its ordinary function in facilitating exchanges is not impaired. It's quite easy in fact, the main problem is really getting there from here.
Well, this is what free market capitalism is for. If it weren't for the loads of regulation whole neighborhoods in SF would have been replaced with high-density housing a decade ago.
However, California has decided that "housing as investment" supersedes all else. It's not that there's no viable alternatives: this is by design.