Is there no solution to housing crisis?

[u/Comfortable-Wrap-493]

I feel like we are completely stuck.

I know the government can't just snap its fingers and force real estate prices to drop. Property is treated as a huge investment. It's not just the massive corporations and wealthy investors; even regular, lower-income people have their entire life savings tied up in the value of their homes. Crashing the market hurts them, too.

But if we don't find a solution, we are heading toward a future where only the rich will ever be able to afford buying land or a house.

Even renting is getting completely out of control. At the rate prices are increasing, soon only people with high-paying corporate jobs will be able to afford a basic apartment.

So what happens to everyone else? What about the working class, the people who actually sweat and break their backs to keep this country running? If the main workforce is priced out of both buying and renting, how does society even function? What about artistic jobs? What about creativity? Should all just join high paying collar jobs?

Does anyone see a realistic way out of this mess?

[u/Seattleman1955]

You haven't stated the case accurately and nothing new is going on today that hasn't always been going on.

People live in places that they can afford and leave areas that they can't afford. There will never be a place where the average person can't afford to rent.

It has nothing to do with how creative or back breaking your job is.

I'm well off but I can't afford to live in Monaco, so I don't. I might be able to but I don't live in NYC. I can afford to live in Seattle but I'm originally from a small city in eastern NC.

If I found Seattle to be too expensive I could move to Kennewick, Washington or I could go back to eastern NC.

If I couldn't afford to buy a house then I would rent. Before the 40s, more people rented than bought so there is nothing "bad" about renting if that is better for your budget.

[u/SkiingAway → u/Seattleman1955]

If I found Seattle to be too expensive I could move to Kennewick, Washington or I could go back to eastern NC.

No, because the labor markets in those lower-cost places often do not have the jobs to support you moving there, or would leave you even worse off for having done so. Most workers do not work in sectors with widespread remote employment. That there are cheap homes available in a place you don't want to live and can't support yourself is not remotely helpful.

The general issue is that the areas where job growth has occurred/jobs have shifted to have generally not built housing at the same pace as they have added employment demand and population and thus the supply of housing has gotten ever tighter.

The only reasonably dignified solutions to this problem are either building more housing near enough to where the employment is to be useful, or somehow turning back the very long arc of history of jobs becoming increasingly concentrated in/near large cities. The former is obviously far easier to achieve.

[u/Seattleman1955 → u/SkiingAway]

No, if you work at the average tech job, you can afford to live there. If you work at Starbuck's, you can do that anywhere.

This is how it has worked forever. Manufacturing jobs left Detroit, people left Detroit. Rents are high in Manhattan, people live in NJ and commute or they have many roommates or some other adjustment.

Don't live in Malibu if you are a "working man".