I had a house built in a factory in Latvia for around 50,000 euro. It was assembled in about 3 days. Foundations cost money but if you use pier or post and beam even that doesn't have to be bad.

In cities that have removed massive zoning barriers, like Minneapolis, housing prices have massivley improved in just a few years. As it turns out, we live in a dynamic economy that can scale up production when it becomes profitable, espically when you consider that its easier to build a multi unit housing block on one piece of land than the same number of housing units in several pieces.

Additionally, we know that though all new housing is marketed as luxgury, studies have shown that still improves the housing market for the less well of as prospective buyers wont take the more run down units ahead of them. I woukd say that allowing housing prcies to continue to increase is clearlu much worse for the poor anyway.

Overall, I completely disagree with your argument, as you argue that we shouldn't try and induce more housing because it is difficult? Like why is that even a reason to not build hosting given private developers will pay for it anyway.

I’m not saying don’t try. But that it’s well more difficult than just changing certain zoning laws. In small pockets it’s easy but not at any kind of scale that makes a difference.

Im arguing that we have seen it work at a large scale, like in Minneapolis or Japan. Its the zoning that prevents the housing from being build that there is demand for.

Japan's inflation has hovered around zero for the last 30 years, and wages have stayed similarly stagnant. They do a good job of building out new housing even as places like Tokyo and Osaka continue growing, but it's not the only factor.

MLPS isn’t anywhere near scale and has seen a population reduction as people move to the suburbs. Japan is a completely different thing.

Prices in the suburbs around MPLS have skyrocketed. It’s quite possible that the affordability is attributed wrongly; though in general less restrictive zoning is going to be good.

> Who is going to build all these new houses? Unemployment is super low and tradesmen are completely booked.

Unemployment is a measure of labor market efficiency. We have computers now so anybody who needs work can apply to jobs over the internet or install an app and do gig work. The only times in this century that the unemployment rate has exceeded 6% were immediately after the housing crisis and a few months during COVID.

But labor market efficiency tells you nothing about how hard it is to find someone to hire. You don't have to find someone without a job, all you have to do is pay more than driving for Uber does.

> Many skilled tradesmen require licensing that takes years to acquire and can not be brought online quickly. Others are unionized that restrict membership.

These are the regulatory barriers, and there are obvious ways to bring capacity online faster. Example: Give a license to anyone who can pass a written exam, then eliminate the testing/licensing fees and give away free study materials.

Here's a big one for free: Stop charging for renewals, so older tradesmen can "retire" (i.e. stop working full time) without making it prohibitively burdensome or expensive to retain their license and work part-time.

> And then there’s materials. Did you see what happened to costs with an uptick in the demand/supply balance during Covid? It’s not so easy to just suddenly increase supply to suit demand on many materials as the inputs come from natural sources that are limited.

Short-term demand shocks are exactly that. It takes time to increase production capacity, but that takes a year give or take depending on the industry, and then output continues at the higher level indefinitely.

There are no practical natural limits on raw materials. You reopen some marginal iron mines. The park service buys some agricultural land to convert into forest while selling some forest land to be logged and converted to agriculture, creating immediate lumber availability. Wood, plastic and aluminum can be substituted for each other in various use cases depending on availability.

> Lastly the people that own the land wound rather build valuable things on it than housing for poors.

Housing is the valuable thing they're prohibited from building on it. The existing problem is that there is too much land zoned only for single-family homes. A piece of land with one single-family home isn't as valuable as the same piece of land with a 10 story building providing 80 housing units.

> For most of history a lot of people had rather modest living conditions. Very small spaces with limited services.

This is literally the thing that people are prohibited from building. Prices would go down significantly if it wasn't because there are plenty of people who would pay a lower price for a smaller space, except that building 10 times as many units on the same lot is prohibited by zoning, and if you can only build one unit on a lot then it's going to be a full-sized house and not a studio.

You just need a dictator instead of this pesky democracy where the people that make up a constituency get to decide how they want to live.

Even still, as you’ve pointed out there’s a lot of other things that would need to change. Like how you license many trades. And that isn’t happening.

It's not a dictator that you need, it's to get the government to stop prohibiting things that ought not to be prohibited. Which you can go vote for.

One of the better ways to do this is to go vote at the state or federal level to remove local zoning restrictions. Because the locals want their housing prices to go up and you don't get a vote in the local election unless you can already afford a house there, but you do get to vote in state and federal elections, so use it.

If someone owns the property next to you, they obviously have an economic interest in the neighborhood. They may or may not live there, but that has nothing to do with zoning. Someone can own a single-family home and rent it out. Meanwhile you can have a 10-story condominium where every single unit is owner-occupied. How tall the building is has nothing to do with whether the property owner lives in it.