[ahmeneeroe-v2]

You think that a minimum of 35% of demand being artificial isn't a factor that can be seen to increase overall demand?

edit: I say "minimum 35%" because that is just the percentage of immigrant-demand that managed to secure housing. Hard to say exactly how many more immigrants are bidding on SF & LA-County housing but 35% is the absolute floor.

[guyzero]

Framing foreign-born residents as "artificial demand" is definitely a thing you can do, but it doesn't align with reality. Some portion of the foreign-born population are naturalized or are family members of US citizens, so it's not like waving your magic racist wand would actually solve the problem.

[ahmeneeroe-v2]

It's weird that immigration and housing is an off-limits topic for you that you're not able to discuss it objectively.

[guyzero]

I just said you're wrong, not that you're prohibited from discussing it.

[carlosjobim]

You also threw a nasty insult at the person, instead of conversing in good faith.

What's artificial about housing demand growth due to immigration is that they arrive into the market as adults. The natural demand growth would in contrast be from births.

[guyzero]

The foreign-born population of LA and SF hasn't changed significantly in decades. It was like 27% in LA in the 80s. Housing there is expensive because there's a lot of demand from a lot of people. Immigration is like reason 11 out of 10 for why housing is expensive in those areas.