The biggest drop in wealth is Shelter and Medical. 50 years ago land was much cheaper. A 300K house (non-land cost) costs 310K (maybe 10k for the land). Whereas today, in states where much job creation happens (i won't name names), a 300K house costs 600K or more. You could say, the previous land owner made all that money and it's true. But, it's just a one time wealth transfer from the latest generation to previous generations of land owners. The problem is, going forward from here, there are no more winners in this game. By, charging vast amounts of money for land that should cost very little, we're simply depriving human being of wealth. Even CA, has more acres than people and yet, even in the country side where there is miles of empty land in every direction, we see houses huddled together, a mere few feet apart like some kind of nazi concentration camp. going forward, this is a game with no winners. the wealth is simply denied. conversely, by denying ourselves this wealth, we can create the wealth out of thin air by allowing the land to be developed OR simply by moving jobs (where jobs go, people follow) to areas where there is sufficient developable land (politically achievable).

Also, there's a huge laundry list of regulation, and zoning that impact numerous industries like housing and transportation that make these things more expensive than they need to be and pass those costs onto consumers.

Just for comparison, i once, calculated that in my area, it takes roughly 80,000 man hours to afford the cheapest house in my suburban neighborhood in the bay area. And yet, in thailand (Jon Jai a humble farmer with no education and no construction training and youtuber), has demonstrated that he could build a modest home with just 200 man hours! He'll tell you, that despite the fact that he lives in country where economists say his per capita income is more than 20 tiems lower than US, he's easily able to afford a house, 1 acre of land and enough food for his family of six and only works 15 min a day (2 months full time out of the year). too much to explain here, but you can visit his channel on youtube for details. I was blown away. and of course, he has the freedom to do so, because less regulations and zoning to get in the way. Sure, he doesn't have many gadgets or cars and even a rice cooker would be hard to acquire but he has the essentials of life: shelter, food and water in abundance: and that's what freedom is largely about.

The challenge with shelter is that it is fundamentally a positional good. Everyone wants to be within the x% most convenient, which is say, desirable, places to live. So as there are more and more people with more money to chase those limited "slots", they get more expensive. Making everyone worse off.

The solution is to massively build many more new good places to live; but there are also enormous forces against that.

When I read “Everyone” in your post, bells went off on my head. It’s too broad a statement. You could offer me a 2M home in the Bay Area, and I’d auction it off to charity. A 5M condo in Manhattan and I’d do the same. You can only say there are enough people with enough money and determination to bid up property in certain areas. Two very wealthy people bidding on one property can take it to astronomical levels, but they are not “everyone”. There are more people who want to live in the Bay Area than there is affordable housing. The number of people who want to live in the Bay Area, though, is a fairly small percentage of the US population (ignoring the homeless who seem to love the Pacific Coast).

Most places in the US are already “good” places to live, if you come with the right attitude, e.g. immigrants looking for a better life. After WWII, GIs dispersed themselves all over the country. They had seen (sometimes too much of) the world, and were open to, and happy with, anyplace in the US that gave them a job, a house and an ability to raise a family. They knew how bad it could be and counted on being able to improve wherever they moved to in the US. And they mostly did, thanks to a solid economy, a stable political system and pure moxie. Same with non-wealthy foreign immigrants. Making the most of what you have generally leads to a pretty nice life anywhere in the US. Even Canada :-).

Internal mobility in the US has been on the decline in recent years, perhaps a sort of generational timidity combined with familial inertia has led to certain highly-populated areas experiencing irrationally high housing costs.

Absolutely >>> The solution is to massively build many more new good places to live

People underestimate the positive impact of this solution.

It's not like we don't have the space. All that's lacking is the will.

Space is not just space. Space has qualities such as non humid climates, near mountains, beaches, access to potable water, and of course, political considerations.

Also, people like more space than less space so incumbents will fight against others coming in, unless the others are bringing benefits such as money or labor for the incumbents.

Agree! That’s super interesting. I’ve longed for a life that is much less coupled to work. Thinking about the US, it is somewhat ironic that many US residents think of themselves as self-reliant yet end up inadvertently supporting systems that undermine true autonomy.

If all you want is a shack on some land you own, you could do that for much less than 80,000 man hours. Land in NE Arizona sells for a few hundred dollars an acre. There's no zoning and very little in the way of regulation.