Strawman: Nobody is asking for free houses for everyone.
The point in the OP is: In the past we were able to house n% of the population while working less and with much worse technolgoy. So why can’t we house more than n% now if we work more and have much better technology?
There are obviously multiple factors here. More people want to live in big cities, which can only expand so much. Living standards have increased, so building new houses is more expensive.
But investors are also expecting more profits from their housing investments. I don’t know the situation in Australia, but in Germany the largest owners of big city houses barely build anything. They buy existing houses, which are often many decades old, and raise the rent. They make double digit profits with that business model while adding zero value to society.
This means tenants often need 50% or even more of their income for rent while building the exact same houses was payed for with only 30% of their tenants income. There are well-off people who could afford new, big houses in the country, but because they live in the city they qualify for social benefits so they can pay rent.
If you spread the houses around and make them normal houses then they’re no longer low cost houses, they’re just houses.
Again, ghettos are not defined by building quality. If only poor people live in a neighborhood of premium houses, you still have a ghetto. And if a diverse group of people from all demographics live next to each other, you won’t have a ghetto even if they all live in budget houses.
God this is tedious.
If you spread the houses around and make them normal houses then they’re no longer low cost houses, they’re just houses.
We can’t build a free house for everyone because of the reasons already stated.
Strawman: Nobody is asking for free houses for everyone.
The point in the OP is: In the past we were able to house n% of the population while working less and with much worse technolgoy. So why can’t we house more than n% now if we work more and have much better technology?
There are obviously multiple factors here. More people want to live in big cities, which can only expand so much. Living standards have increased, so building new houses is more expensive.
But investors are also expecting more profits from their housing investments. I don’t know the situation in Australia, but in Germany the largest owners of big city houses barely build anything. They buy existing houses, which are often many decades old, and raise the rent. They make double digit profits with that business model while adding zero value to society.
This means tenants often need 50% or even more of their income for rent while building the exact same houses was payed for with only 30% of their tenants income. There are well-off people who could afford new, big houses in the country, but because they live in the city they qualify for social benefits so they can pay rent.
Again, ghettos are not defined by building quality. If only poor people live in a neighborhood of premium houses, you still have a ghetto. And if a diverse group of people from all demographics live next to each other, you won’t have a ghetto even if they all live in budget houses.
Exactly what I’ve been saying as nauseum. It’s a supply problem that can’t be fixed with money.