I agree with this in general. I'm not sure how it bolsters or refutes what I said. The premise I was responding to is that noting change in inventory will sho

I agree with this in general. I'm not sure how it bolsters or refutes what I said. The premise I was responding to is that noting change in inventory will show much larger swings if there's relatively few units on the market, and that may be a poor indicator of what's going on. Simplified, it's the difference between a market of 100 units of this 10 are avaiable inventory, and seeing an increase of 3 units (30% raise in available inventory) and a a market of 100 units that has 1 unit available and sees an increase of 2 units (200% increase in available inventory). There was an increase in inventory, and it helps, but probably not as much as 200% would lead one to believe. The article itself noted the latter was the case in SF as there was "unusually low inventory" compared to other cities beforehand. Of course the difference is going to look outsized, in that case. > if the prior non-occupancy rate was very low, you'd expect a shock that doubles the rate (say, 5% -> 10%) to lead to perhaps a larger price change than in a less tight market (such as 10% -> 15%) That depends on so many other factors that I think you can't easily generalize like that for housing. If the inventory is still very low, and now instead of being uber-rich you just need to be very-rich, you're still so constrained in your potential customers that the price range may not change significantly, or if you're still catering to a class of people that do or don't traditionally commute, or if the price is hovering near the break even for a lot of people for commuting vs living local, or whether the work in the area that many of the potential customers does can be done remotely (as these articles are about), etc. Housing is one of the most complicated markets, and there are numerous counterexamples of the exact opposite happening to what you describe