Even if that scenario were true and we were to generously call "rich" the top 10% of the income distribution, and let's go further and discount the entire botto

Even if that scenario were true and we were to generously call "rich" the top 10% of the income distribution, and let's go further and discount the entire bottom 50% of households as renters, then the naive breakdown would be 3 "unaffordable" homes owned by the 10th (richest) decile, 4 owned by the 6-9th deciles, and 0 homes owned by the rest. So 43% (3/7) of homes should be priced for the rich and 57% for the non-rich. The fact that it deviates so egregiously from that is pretty striking, I think. The graphic indicates that as recently as ten years ago, 50% of homes were affordable to the median household. Seems clear that the US is simply not building nearly enough homes in places where people want to live, and therefore what is being put up for sale fetches a huge premium. That works out great for home builders and people who are already homeowners and are seeing their homes appreciate in value, and since people who are truly wealthy willing pay a premium to buy property in locations with restrictive housing laws, there's a disincentive to alter the status quo.