> Is more housing really the answer? > Instead of increasing the supply, perhaps addressing the demand is the only way out. Prices are a reflection of supply a

> Is more housing really the answer? > Instead of increasing the supply, perhaps addressing the demand is the only way out. Prices are a reflection of supply and demand. There are only two ways to lower prices. Either increase supply or lower demand. One of them is a solvable issue, which is to increase supply. The other option, which is to lower demand, is either unrealistic or unfair. How, do you suppose, we lower demand? The only way you can lower demand is by getting people to change their mind. But how can you realistically expect people to change their mind? Everyone wants to move to L.A., the Bay Area, and other expensive cities because of the good jobs, universities, and career opportunities exist there. > I keep thinking of induced demand increasing traffic on the roads Induced demand is an interesting topic, but do not conflate it with the housing crisis. These are two fundamentally different economic situations. Induced demand is theoretically "induced" because the public good or service is free and utilizing the resource comes at no additional cost to the consumer. Homes on the other hand are not free. They come at a price. And therefore, there is nothing inducing its demand like you would theoretically see with widening a freeway.