Thanks, I take the point that housing is expensive and two people pooling their median wage can't afford an average price home, and in the meantime they're paying rent to landlords. I also take the point that whilst paying rent to landlords, those landlords are increasing their wealth and this contributes to them being able to buy more homes. What I don't get is how you can conclude:
> If any freshly built housing is bought up by landlords who can afford to outbid ordinary people, then adding supply doesn't alleviate the problem.
Assuming house building is economically viable (and if it's not all bets are off anyway) then isn't it equally plausible that building masses of housing means that
1. There will be simply too many new houses for landlords to buy them anyway. Their capital isn't unlimited! And,
2. House prices will drop, forcing landlords who are holding housing for the appreciation will exist the market, further putting prices down.
> If any freshly built housing is bought up by landlords who can afford to outbid ordinary people, then adding supply doesn't alleviate the problem.
Assuming house building is economically viable (and if it's not all bets are off anyway) then isn't it equally plausible that building masses of housing means that
1. There will be simply too many new houses for landlords to buy them anyway. Their capital isn't unlimited! And,
2. House prices will drop, forcing landlords who are holding housing for the appreciation will exist the market, further putting prices down.