During the pandemic the price of used cars started to rise. Did we attribute that to people with more money who can then get higher credit on the now more expensive cars?

No, we attributed it to a lack of supply of cars, and worked to free up the blockages so that the market would return to its correct state where cars depreciated.

It's the same problem with housing. We need to build an awful lot more, and we need to move the work to where we build the houses.

Once we cross the rubicon and house prices start to depreciate, as they should because they wear out, then we'll see a phase shift in the market and vastly more supply. It'll be like the latent heat of condensation.

In 2015, of all renter households:

* 38% were rent burdened (defined as spending 30% or more of pretax income on rent), an increase of about 19% from 2001.

* 17% were severely rent burdened (spending 50% or more), an increase of 42% from 2001 (the 38% rent burdened includes the 17% severely burdened).

For households headed by someone 65+, 50% are rent burdened, ~20% severely rent burdened.

https://www.pewtrusts.org/-/media/assets/2018/04/rent-burden...

Real estate, education, healthcare...

And that was entirely predictable, when a country allows the free flow of capital, and goods but not people then it becomes a race to the bottom in sectors which can move to lower cost areas. There is a certain amount of price suppression for some local goods and the demand dries up, but for things which aren't optional the price will continue to inflate until the system breaks. Infant child care is in this position, the workers competing internationally can't afford to pay for the care of their infants because its local labor intensive.

Basically its broken economic policy and its just a matter of time before it explodes. And its probably not fixable because if the cost of labor ever gets equal, then capital is just going to move to the country that say has the smallest carbon tax/whatever.

Basically a prereq for free trade should be a common government, and free movement of people.

The only exception is the US because it has a structural deficit.

It's actually the opposite. Countries have tried to artificially raise interest rates above liquidiry preference via inflation targeting and stimulus for the last 40 years.

Median housing in the US has been around inflation adjusted $100/sq ft for decades.

Houses today are massively larger than in the past, making the costs look higher. And what you get today is also a lot better - more efficient, cheaper to heat and cool, safer, better electrical, water, etc.

I was talking about the European real-estate market. I don't know the US market but I heard it's much more affordable than here, at least outside of SF/NY/etc.

I don't see evidence across all of Europe any data for much difference than in the US. Dense places cost more, sparse places are amazingly cheap. Poorer countries, like poor states, have even cheaper housing.

Maybe we need more housing options