Or, reduce demand by spreading out jobs to other cities and states where their more needed. (not ideal, i know, but it is a secondary option)

> Or, reduce demand by spreading out jobs to other cities and states where their more needed.

This does not happen, nor is it remotely desirable. Having a life involves much more than having a decent job. It entails living where the person chooses to live according to their personal tastes and desires.

If you force the decision on where to live based on a single constraint that in theory is only a major part of your life so that you can fund your personal life and personal interests then this leads to poor quality of living for all (including spouces, offsprings and immediatr family) just to cater to a company's bottom line.

I'd wager that many more people are moving to the cities that have housing problems for the jobs than because they genuinely want to live there.

It only matters where the people with money want to live, and in my experience they overwhelmingly choose to live in high cost of living cities. The rest have to follow, if they want high paying, upward mobility jobs.

> [people with money] overwhelmingly choose to live in high cost of living cities.

You're confounding your observations. People with money choose to live in areas that maximize their quality of life, and they don't mind paying a premium for that.

Quality of life matters to all, whether rich or poor. Poor people aren't masochists.

You keep thinking people move places and then find jobs. This is not correct in the USA. Also, the quality of life is not higher in these expensive cities.

I have seen it argued in gentrifying neighborhoods that we should reject all projects which make those neighborhoods nicer to live in, to discourage new residents. This is a pretty direct way of reducing demand: making your neighborhood shittier.

Behold the devaluation kit (German): wife beaters, satellite dishes, discount supermarket plastic bags, ... https://www.esregnetkaviar.de/relaunch/abwertungskit.html

Invite me to live there, I'll bring down the the tone.

> If you remove price, it will be something else besides price, such as a lottery, how politically connected you are, or something else.

The main driver of price is not "demand" imagined as how much people willing to pay for a particular house but demand as how much people are capable of paying, which is mediated by access to debt. If access to debt is clamed down on across the board, then prices will fall accross the board. People will still compete on price but as a society a smaller fraction of income will be spent on housing.

That is true for existing, middle class and below housing for sure. Whenever interest rates go up, we see the exact effect you are describing.

it's not the whole story however. In order to increase Supply, it has to be profitable to build new homes. If building new homes is not profitable, none will be built, and the price of existing homes will be forced upward until it matches the cost of new construction.

So I agree with you that access to debt is a very important factor, but I disagree that it is more important than demand when you look at the whole picture.

Rent control prevents people who currently have homes from being displaced. It also limits the degree to which housing is a commodity investors can profit off of & the degree to which they can exploit their tenants. It is obviously not a complete solution to the housing crisis (and no housing advocate claims this) -- a complete solution means rent control and building more housing, especially high quality public housing.

As long as rent control prices existing homes above the cost of new construction, then there won't be a problem. However if rent controls cap the price at below the cost of new construction, nobody is going to build. They would be losing money if they do that.

The state can build housing then if it's not profitable. Housing is a public good and a right, it should not be a product or investment.