> You are right that there is no normal. The US in the 1900s, especially western US, was probably a right place in the right time event where the parameters of

> You are right that there is no normal. The US in the 1900s, especially western US, was probably a right place in the right time event where the parameters of the environment allowed for that number of humans to live at a certain quality of life, and the parameters have changed now that there are billions of more people in the world, and probably tens or maybe even a hundred million more competitors. There is a normal, and it is to allow housing to be constructed as desired. The whole number of people on the planet is not relevant. For example, if the same regulations had existed for centuries before, there would be no metropolises today, because all construction has been constricted, to include the formation of a new metropolis. Take a look at some place like New York city in Google Maps, then look at San Jose, California. notice that San Jose has somewhere close to 1000 square miles of undeveloped land surrounding it. In fact, if you drive to San Jose going north on 101, the "Entering San Jose" sign is in the middle of nowhere and IIRC, you can't see anything resembling civilization other than the eroded star-thistle-saturated brown hills (they claim this is for "preservation" as if that is what things looked like before being settled). I have been through this issue for myself many times in considering where I live, because I was always just behind the curve in Silicon Valley, so I left, as the minimum wage to live what I consider a normal American life is now $150k in that region, with housing ownership starting salary at $250k, which is ludicrous. You have to work this back completely: at some point, there were no people. Then someone arrived and decided they would like to construct shelter for themselves in the form of a house atop some soil. Then more people arrived, and they decided to do the same thing. We arrive at the 1990s, and many people have this: shelter atop some soil. Philosophically, you cannot justify someone who has shelter atop soil being granted the privilege of owning the shelter over someone who would like to construct shelter atop their soil, other than to say they have greater rights than the other, which presents a rather different picture: the establishment of a caste system which also works to enrich those who already own shelter. Thus, the scenario today is the older generations directly profiting from the impoverishment of the younger generations. I call this a great moral conundrum, and what is difficult about it is the older generations are in no way motivated to ever address this conundrum. They can live out their entire lives profiting from this highly immoral scenario, and not even think about it. It is why I believe that land owners in California and elsewhere with similar policies are among the most immoral people in modern history.