> Also the chair, if actually built, would be so expensive that one legged guy can’t afford it. His best hope is someone with a worse chair takes it, then he tries to take their seat, but there’s already a dozen two-legged guys in front of him.

Maybe you need 5 chairs? Here in SF supply has fallen decades behind the demand curve to the point it may be impossible to catch up even if all you did was build build build.

It's a death by a thousand cuts situation.

Everyone wants to blame existing landowners and sure they share part of it but the lion's share of the blame ought to be directed at do-gooders (land owning or otherwise) who are unwilling to be honest (with themselves, or in the internet comments) and admit that every policy that "looks good" based on the one sided statements presented in abstract by its peddlers.

Each one of those policies is part of the system that gets us the results we have and the peddlers all share in the blame.

I always sound YIMBY but yes, that’s another part of it.

The economy has hyper-concentrated in a small number of cities and regions.

Telework has helped a little bit to reverse it, but it’s nowhere near enough and it only works for some industries and roles.

They really do this. They give subsidies to people to be able to afford homes when there’s insufficient supply.

Huge surprise: it makes prices go up. More money chasing the same goods.

We will do literally anything to fix housing shortages but build housing.

Of course now we’ve decided to start dumb penis length measuring contest trade wars with our main suppliers of raw building materials. That will help.

> Whatever will we do when there are already enough houses for everyone to have one?

In many places in Europe and Asia, the govt will essentially pay you to go live in near-abandoned villages and revitalize them.

In USA it’s just ghost towns. See also Detroit

The problem is better described as "There aren't enough homes where people want to live". We have plenty of houses, even in america. The "where people want to live" part largely comes down to density, zoning laws, and the fact that for most people their primary residence represents their entire net worth and it would be materially impactful if the price went down (by building more/better homes nearby). So everyone resists building.

But it's okay, if you resist building for long enough then your town will eventually collapse and your house will be worth nothing anyway. Many american Towns are essentially insolvent and can't afford realistic upkeep prices for services like sewage, roads, good schools, etc., and are living on borrowed time until infrastructure collapses and nobody wants to buy there. See Strong Towns the book.