This is only true if your definition of land is constrained to the teeny tiny fraction of land that is already developed into highly desirable cities. Which in real estate terms is like trying to buy a stock at its peak and complaining it's expensive.

I am in no way saying that burdensome regulation has artificially limited the growth of existing metro areas and caused a bubble driven by artificial scarcity but the idea that there's nowhere to invest in at the ground floor where it's cheap is absurd. This happens in cities on a smaller scale already. The nice areas are too expensive so young artsy people move where its cheap, make it better, and then it becomes a good area -- repeat.

If you invested in the development of say, Akron Ohio with the goal of tipping the scales and starting flywheel of metropolitan growth and your bet pays off not only will you be filthy filthy rich but you'll create brand new economic activity and real growth. Of course fighting over the same 100 sq miles is a zero sum game.

As an individual laborer your choices are obviously limited to where you can find work but as an investor the sky is the limit.