> A cheap city example is Cleveland. The reason why it's so cheap? In 1960, 900,000 people lived there. Today, 400,000 people live there. Cleveland is not actu

> A cheap city example is Cleveland. The reason why it's so cheap? In 1960, 900,000 people lived there. Today, 400,000 people live there. Cleveland is not actually that cheap (it just looks dirt cheap to people earning Californian dollars). And Cleveland would instantly be as expensive as California, if Silicon Valley headquartered there instead of California -- the fact that 900k people once lived there would not help in any way. The prices of places is largely not determined by supply or demand. It's determined by the value of the property around it, and that property in aggregate is determined by the wealth of the jobs congregated there, and the concentration of capital located there. Only by redefining "demand" to not mean "persons needing homes" but instead to mean "anything that impacts the price" can you make a supply vs demand model work for housing. > The population of LA in 1960 was 2.4 million. Today, its over 4 million in the city proper. Units in LA are on the market for a weekend, you sign your lease on monday, and move in by thursday. The population of Grand Rapids, Michigan was ~198k in 1970. Today, it's still ~198k in 2020 -- same population, almost exactly. Despite this, units in Grand Rapids are on the market for a weekend, you sign your lease on Monday, and move in by Thursday. Despite this, units cost has increased by about 700% during that time. Because, again, supply and demand are not the primary factors in housing costs in the US. They haven't been for over 50+ years now.