Public policies are now heavily favouring public transport and cycling, which both require higher population density than single family homes to be effective. A

Public policies are now heavily favouring public transport and cycling, which both require higher population density than single family homes to be effective. As a consequence, a higher share of the population is expected to live in apartments rather than homes compared to the 70's and 80's. Additionally, averages tend be impacted by outliers. Take the example of a rich heir buying a multi-million dollar mansion. His property will heavily influence the average house cost and his income is close to 0 since he lives off his capital, thereby reducing the average household income. This can twist the perception of what's actually happening for most people. The best way to fight that is to use medians instead of averages. I am not able to find reputable sources for data in Norway, but what does your analysis look like when looking at median household income and median appartment prices. As this will more likely reflect the reality on the field. Of course, people will want to own houses, but large - car optimized - and low density suburbs, are an anomaly of the last 50 years. They actually aren't sustainable, so their expansion has to stop, and the expectation is that the median worker will be steered towards appartment, while the richer elite will be able to afford houses - but that will gradually become a minority.