> The issue is oligopolies. Few large businesses that own the majority of available rentals and thus can set prices to whatever they like to rake in the profits

> The issue is oligopolies. Few large businesses that own the majority of available rentals and thus can set prices to whatever they like to rake in the profits. Even if it's true that a few large businesses own most rentals, that kind of oligopolistic behavior should be undercut by new people entering the market by building more apartments - unless there's a big barrier to entry, like the difficulty in building things when there's restrictive zoning! > There's no federal zoning laws, so why would everywhere from California to Idaho see the same drastic spikes in home prices? The incentives that produce NIMBYs - wanting to keep supply low so that housing prices stay high, and not wanting to deal with any of the annoyances of increased density - are the same everywhere. > Why are existing units that have existed since at least 2010 (and I believe back to 2005) commanding $400 premiums over what inflation would dictate? Do you think back in 2010 they were losing money renting to me? No, but now there are more people who want to live there and they haven't built enough housing to keep up, so the bidding is more intense.