That's what "income inequality" is a shortcut for. I apologize, I of course meant "the disturbing increase in income inequality". I didn't intend to advocate fo

That's what "income inequality" is a shortcut for. I apologize, I of course meant "the disturbing increase in income inequality". I didn't intend to advocate for absolute income equality :) Which trajectory is sustainable? One where housing prices don't significantly outperform income growth, where the price range allows people of all ends of the spectrum to find housing, and where the inventory isn't constrained as much by regulations that only serve the purpose of "ensuring property values". > Lol, there is no question about that. The real question is how? I'm curious - if there's no question about that, your "why would they want housing prices to go down" doesn't make sense. What do I miss? I want them to go down now & controlled because I'd like a controlled descent. It seems you agree on that :) "How" is a surprisingly tricky question that, among other things, depends on local economics. The solution for LA will look different than the solution for SF. (And SF is in a deep pickle. I'm glad the LA problems are not quite as bad yet) Affordable housing projects (and financing them) will play a key role. But they're far from the only part - we'll also need to talk about densification, fixing blighted neighborhoods, simplifying the permitting process. There will need to be changes to the rent control system, meaningful fixes to minimum wage, improved public transit, fixes to the nonsensical zoning system... And Prop 13 needs to die a fiery death. Many of these changes are going to be somewhat painful for existing homeowners, but the inevitable collapse if we don't address this will be more painful.