This seems to be the central argument: > “While building more affordable housing in core agglomerations would accommodate more people,” the authors note, “the

This seems to be the central argument: > “While building more affordable housing in core agglomerations would accommodate more people,” the authors note, “the collapse of the urban wage premium for less-educated workers means that the extra housing would mostly attract additional skilled workers.” In other words,they seem to argue that building more only attracts more high-paid works. Ok... so let’s build even MORE, until a new equilibrium is reached at a lower price. There is a finite number of the higher paid jobs and a finite number of people who can perform them without additional training. That number is not small, so if want to change the market for housing, amount of new supply must also not be small. Seattle has been making a dent, but unfortunately not a very big one: https://www.seattletimes.com/business/real-estate/amid-building-boom-1-in-10-seattle-apartments-are-empty-and-rents-are-dropping/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/real-estate/amid-build... Imagine what would happen if they built even more? However, if we did build enough, a significant number of people would be impacted in a different way - it’s impossible to build just the right number, so we are much more likely to significantly reduce the value of homes if we built enough (in actuality too much) to not price people out. Anyone that bought around the time of the boom would likely see prices fall.