It’s not true (at least not for the past 20 years nationwide). New housing has grown faster than population growth. In 2000 there were 113 units per capita vs 1

It’s not true (at least not for the past 20 years nationwide). New housing has grown faster than population growth. In 2000 there were 113 units per capita vs 145 per capita today.[0] The average number of people per household hasn’t changed significantly since then, so there is technically 30% more housing available in the US than 20 years ago. Not all of that housing is where people want it, investors are collecting properties like Pokémon, the vast majority of people can only afford a house half the price they could before interests rates rose, and those with mortgages are stuck with their low rates and little incentive to move (or at least sell). So it’s not the lack of units that’s the issue, but a market that (surprise!) favors the wealthy and entrenched. If you had cash, houses could be found at absurdly low prices 12 years ago. But as always, the climate favored the wealthy whose credit score wasn’t wrecked, who had excess capital to deploy, and were willing to tie it up in real estate for 5-10 years as the market recovered. 0 - https://twitter.com/Econimica/status/1686999658483314688 https://twitter.com/Econimica/status/1686999658483314688