[wolverine876]

Cities have seen plenty of high-end housing built (afaik), and yet there is still a lack of affordable housing.

Building more expensive homes doesn't seem to increase availability of affordable ones. The idea that it would seems to be another 'trickle-down economics' theory, the one from the 1980s that if we help the wealthy get wealthier, the benefits will 'trickle-down' (turns out, only the first step worked). Reasonably, wealthy people don't see poor housing as an option, though there is gentrification.

> When car makers couldn't make enough cars in 2021 and the price went up, was the solution to ban making new cars? Should we have prohibited making cars with fancy trim?

Making expensive cars wouldn't seem to result in many more affordable ones.

> This is silly.

An aggressive assertion that you aren't thinking, and aren't willing to.

[akanet]

You are mistaken, modern housing construction in major cities is far below historical numbers

[wolverine876]

I've seen plenty of high-end apartments and condos, etc., but that's a small market and therefore low overall quantity.

[cheriot]

> Cities have seen plenty of high-end housing built (afaik), and yet there is still a lack of affordable housing.

They permit office space for more workers than bedrooms. A big clue: pandemic aside, commutes get longer every year.

> The idea that it would seems to be another 'trickle-down economics' theory, the one from the 1980s that if we help the wealthy get wealthier, the benefits will 'trickle-down' (turns out, only the first step worked). Reasonably, wealthy people don't see poor housing as an option, though there is gentrification.

I see you're versed in the left-NIMBY lingo. No, 'trickle down economics' was an excuse for the wealthy to pay lower taxes. When fancy new housing is built, the property taxes are higher.

> Making expensive cars wouldn't seem to result in many more affordable ones.

I think you're intentionally missing the point. The price came down when more cars could be manufactured.