[WarOnPrivacy]

> how does renting out old stock not increase supply?

Raw and overall housing numbers can be misleading by their nature. That is, they can be technically true while being false for many/most people.

    Declaration: Housing supply is increased!
    Actuality: Increase is only in homes for >$100k income earners.
    The declaration is true for >$100k.
    It is not true for most <$100k earners.

   (of those <$100k earners)
   There could be a very slight increase in supply for $80k.
   It'll be less, if any, for $60k earners.
   There is no increase in supply for <$40k (25% of US households).

Past that, there is a challenge in tossing around $250k and $500k houses as examples of anything. Those numbers are 4x & 8x over what typical-wage households can afford.

Generally, there is no affordable, reasonable housing for typical income earners.

[bryanlarsen]

It's still an increase. Rich people always have a house. If they can buy a rich person house it means they aren't outbidding normal people for non-luxury housing.

[WarOnPrivacy]

What figure divides luxury and non-luxury housing?

Asking for the 25% of Americans who make <$40k/yr.

[rootusrootus]

> Past that, there is a challenge in tossing around $250k and $500k houses as examples of anything. Those numbers are 4x & 8x over what typical-wage households can afford.

Is that true? A median household (with ~80K income) should be able to swing a 250K mortgage, probably a $325K house with down payment.

[WarOnPrivacy]

> Is that true? A median household (with ~80K income) should be able to swing a 250K mortgage, probably a $325K house with down payment.

80k is 3-4 typical wages. That is, the wages of jobs that are most obtainable make 25k-31k.

The folks in those income brackets are 25% of the population (and 35% of minority groups).

Housing stats are commonly presented as if they don't exist. However until few administrations, they had a long history of home ownership.