[sacred_numbers]

Well, it's not a lose lose situation to the people that don't own property yet. They would greatly benefit from housing costs dropping, since they could afford to buy their own house or pay less in rent. The problem is that the people who don't own property tend to have less political power and influence than property owners.

[PoachedSausage]

I agree that the basic human need of shelter should be more affordable. I remember 10 years ago, when prices dropped after the financial crisis, people were saying "this is it" but it is politcally untenable to allow prices to drop. So those that didn't own eventually got tired of waiting and then when they have bought they don't want a drop, because who wants to burn money?

[RestlessMind]

> I agree that the basic human need of shelter should be more affordable.

Affordable where? In West Texas or in Paris? Today, Paris' population is ~2M and the residential buildings cannot be taller than 50m by law. If 10M people want to live there, is it a "basic human right" to build 10M homes for them by replacing existing Parisian building by skyscrapers? What will that do to the existing fabric/culture of the city, and who gets to decide what is allowed? Existing residents or the would-be residents?

[PoachedSausage]

Perhaps the question isn't where but when.

40 years ago my parents were able to buy a large modern home for about 3 times times one of their salaries. For young people today it is more like 6 - 10 times the combined salaries of two people.

[RestlessMind]

Where did your parents live? In mid-west or in suburbs or in Manhattan? Where are young people living today and are those similar locations as their parents?