[JumpCrisscross]

> Doesn't this contradict your central thesis?

No. In development-constrained world, particularly one with long approval timelines, you need to make money on margin. In a less-constrained world, you can bring to force economies of scale and make money in volume.

The thesis is: if you have an anti-development environment, developers will maximise margins. This isn’t a conspiracy and it isn’t artificially increasing value. It’s survival. If ten houses will get built but there is demand for twenty, and everyone pays the same for labour and materials and lobbyists, all those houses will be as high end as the market will bear. You’re competing in getting the right to build; the market is inelastic. If anyone can build twenty or thirty houses without years of approvals, you’re going to prioritise your costs, because there is a chance you don’t sell every single house. You’re competing on price and value; the market is elastic. (You also get a learning curve.)

This is why Sydney has price inelasticity for detached housing. The scarcity is a policy choice.

[stoppingin]

This sounds intuitively correct with regards to the economics of property development. I'm not a property developer though. I'm not really that concerned about their profits. I'm a young person renting an apartment in a city that is rapidly becoming unaffordable for the average Australian. The point of my post above was: If property developers are legally able to artificially constrain supply to maximise their profits, then how does all this YIMBYism actually benefit me? The main argument I hear for urban consolidation is that increasing supply lowers the cost. If this doesn't actually happen, then what's in it for us again?