When it comes to housing markets the discussion is usually centered around free market vs. government regulation, but both sides selectively use sources to unde

When it comes to housing markets the discussion is usually centered around free market vs. government regulation, but both sides selectively use sources to underline their points. Viewing the housing market simply as an issue of demand vs. supply is faulty - there are other factors at work that are detrimental for renters. I have terrible internet right now which makes it hard to look up sources, but almost all cities here in Germany have rents rising faster than wages or inflation - even those with decreasing populations. Even if it was just an issue of demand and supply, housing isn't just any commodity. Cities shouldn't just maximise for supply, they also have to factor in other things, like life quality, availability of services, pollution and more. For example I don't think rent control is an effective tool to be used broadly, but if I look at the district I grew up in in the 90s, almost all the native people were pushed out of it, and the rich people living there now not only fundamentally changed the districts spirit, they also effectively segregated themselves from the poorer segments of society. If this trend continued on a city-wide level, you would have boring rich districts and ghettos, as well as increasing and very visible inequality. So in the housing market I think capitalism fails quite spectacularly in accounting for very important factors that are only indirectly tied to profit. The few metropolis that have a functioning housing market usually also have massive public-housing companies, and they mix meaningful regulation with fast and easy bureaucracy. - The obvious examples coming to mind would be Singapore and Vienna.