Honestly, I feel like the market works. If you want to sell your home, you sell it to the highest bidder. If I want a spacious home, I have to compete with ever

Honestly, I feel like the market works. If you want to sell your home, you sell it to the highest bidder. If I want a spacious home, I have to compete with everyone else who wants one. If I had the money for it, I might buy a 2000 square foot home in SF, but I don't and that's ok with me. It doesn't feel unfair. Because I would like something like that, I'll end up moving somewhere cheaper in a few years. I'm 100% ok with that dynamic. I feel like changing the landscape for the people who are already there just because I can't afford it is the wrong solution. They settled down there because they like it, and I'd rather move than ruin it just so I can stay. There tons of second order effects, and I'm not arguing for a complete "let the market decide all things" libertarian stance or a "don't ever change things" stance either, but I don't like the other extreme either, where we are willing to discard the character of a place because jobs are dense there. I don't really know what I'm rambling about now, I just don't agree with the extreme of "make housing as accessible as it could be for the largest number of people." I'm happy to be priced out of places were I would love to live, and prefer that to the alternative of making them places I wouldn't want to live, I guess?