The thing is, that assumption that without rent controls, developers can finance more money on builds hinges on the fact that supply is constrained, and will continue to be constrained in the future such that rents will march past average wages. At which point you have to wonder who is being served by laws set up like that? Certainly not the city, which has a tacit interest in housing all the workers that generate its economic activity within its own borders just for tax base reasons to cover the infrastructure these workers use to work in said city. Certainly not the workers of the city, who would like to live a reasonable distance from their job for a reasonable proportion of their net pay. The only real benefactor from such a paradigm are those that stand to make profit hand over fist from this status quo, and these people are often not the central cogs of the regional economy that makes the place such a place to invest in the first place. They are more like a parasitic loss on the system versus serving any mutually beneficial function to the system. These beneficiaries may live outside of the system entirely, and basically serve to extract wages from the system which aren't replaced much like any other extractive industry.

Now, there is a solid argument that apartments have gotten too expensive due to regulation. Look at any apartment building and what do you often see? Its cladded in tiny 3 feet by 8 feet balconies that can scarcely hold a cafe table, it often has some big central mostly useless courtyard like area within the complex itself to check a box for some outdoor space requirement, and it has a parking garage that extends 100 feet into the earth. All of these things are also brought on by regulation that demands the developer to build these things if they are to see the build approved. These can also all be nixed, and in many cases they have been used pretty much to just serve as a vehicle for graft for city officials. Put a bag of popcorn in your microwave and then read about Jose Huizar if you want a brief of how these sorts of things function in large american cities.

That being said there is no rational reason to support advancing rents past wages. Why would there be? Its the snake eating itself; the race to the bottom is that you end up with only the high income sliver of your regional economy of workers living where the job activity takes place, which is pretty wholly terrible for the environment and also deprives most of the opportunities that present themselves from being able to live near a major job center. We should be doing anything we can to prevent this race to the bottom, just for our own climates sake if the mere wellbeing of your fellow worker isn't enough.