"need" can have a lot of flexibility.

For example in some countries, many students share a house. Whereas in other countries, every student will have a whole house to themselves.

In some places, children will get their own house at 16. In others, children, parents, and grandparents are all sharing one house.

Because people want to live in particular areas

This is really the issue. There are plenty of places people can live and afford. But everyone wants a particular lifestyle and a certain job in their desired field and maybe proximity to certain people. That sense of entitlement has been rebranded as an affordability crisis but it isn’t that. It’s just entitlement. People should instead live within their means and make sacrifices. Not everyone gets to live in highly desirable places like SF and that’s okay.

Is it entitled to want to live in the city you were born in and grew up in?

You could say that not everyone gets to: have a car, use a computer, have access to quality food, visit a museum, etc and you could argue that that's okay and people should instead live within their means and make sacrifices. We could also, you know, go the post industrial revolution route and build as much and more of what we need. Very dense locations such as parts of NYC, Paris, and Tokyo exist and there is a shortage of apartments in these types of spots relative to how many people want to live there. And the areas surrounding, say SF, are mostly suburban. Why not convert these surrounding suburbs to essentially just be more SF - or even more dense and build significant amounts of transit connecting them? Then repeat this for every expensive city in the world, adding a multiple of capacity compared to what we currently have.

This is nonsense. Someone has to haul away the trash, police the streets, put out fires, teach the kids, ya know.... all that stuff you feel entitled to.

The people who actually take care of a community aren't "entitled" for wanting to be part of it.