There's a huge logical fallacy in this debate that is constantly overlooked (or suppressed) ... it's that the older houses owned by these boomers tend to get co

There's a huge logical fallacy in this debate that is constantly overlooked (or suppressed) ... it's that the older houses owned by these boomers tend to get converted into rentals. When they do get sold, the amount of work needed to get them livable is just too much. So they go to local "Property Management Companies (PMCs) looking to up their rental income portfolio while simultaneously making the supply artificially scarce. Here's their typical MO: 1) Buy the house from the boomer. 2) Put the cheapest shiny sheen over the decrepit and crumbling bones of an aging house, hiding as best as possible infrastructure problems. 3) Put the house back on the market as a "remodel". Use a realtor or some other salesperson to create a false sense of scarcity and urgency related to the perception of "supply / demand", thus increasing the "market value" of the house. Create bidding wars among individuals and private REITs/landlord companies. 4) End up selling it to another private REIT (whose pocketbooks are bottomless) and set the base rent of the hyperinflated value of the house accordingly, thus increasing market rents. In reality, of course, the house is actually crap, needs tons of work, is constantly experiencing electrical or plumbing issues. The renters, though, have no recourse as they've already signed a year-long lease trapping them in the company's investment. Sometimes a family does end up buying the "remodel" only to discover that the work has been done shoddily and to hide flaws rather than to extend longevity. It sucks and is evil on about every level. But nobody is reporting it: regional news stations and newspapers won't let investigative journalists expose the fraud either... because the "real estate" section is their lifeblood in terms of ad revenue.