I'm assuming you're suggestion that housing is a Veblen good is in jest - I can build a shining, gilded tower in the middle of Wyoming and I'm not going to attr

I'm assuming you're suggestion that housing is a Veblen good is in jest - I can build a shining, gilded tower in the middle of Wyoming and I'm not going to attract America's wealthiest citizens to Cheyenne... It seems like you're conflating cause and effect here - If Cleveland isn't good enough, then it must be the tier-1 city that is the cause of the demand. Not the housing itself. Further, unless the new luxury units are sitting empty (a problem Vancouver, BC dealt with for awhile), then the market for rents functions regardless of whether speculation is occurring. I invite you to find an example of vacancies increasing in the same place that housing/rents climb - it won't exist in any of the real estate hot-beds in America. The main thrust of this article and the research surrounding it by folks like City Observatory, Sightline Institute, etc. is that we now do know the dynamic of housing prices in booming economies. I don't feel like you've provided any evidence that contradicts the conclusions presented in the research, so I'm having trouble pinpointing your skepticism. Let me know if I've missed your point!