The specifics here are somewhat inaccurate, but the overall point is simple sense. If house prices consistently increase, housing will be unaffordable. Specifi

The specifics here are somewhat inaccurate, but the overall point is simple sense. If house prices consistently increase, housing will be unaffordable. Specifics matter though. Home ownership can be sensible as a hedge against price changes, as a forced savings, as an intergenerational asset, as a security for loans... These all relate to "wealth building" and they make sense in a stable-price world. They make sense for low income people, who have more need of stability. So yes, rising prices contradicts affordability. But no, home ownership doesn't stop making sense if they don't. There was a thread yesterday, o. Clayton Home's (allegedly) predatory practices. A notable point (to me) is that the low income market (where land is cheap, this doesn't apply to dense urban areas) seems well served by the market, in that case, pre-fab homes. They are affordable. Where the problems start is in the lending market. High interest rates, affordability problems, hard sells and a general market that gets a suboptimal (or downright abusive) product to the customer. This is a recurring theme. Lending/financial markets either don't serve the bottom third of the new income distribution or they gauge them. It happened with the subprime markets, rolling debt markets. Payday loans are an example. ..long list. I think affordable housing is two distinct problems. One is prices, and that's mostly an urban issue. The second is loans, one of the most "it's expensive to be poor" markets there is. I'm in the "capitalism doesn't apply to money markets" camp.