The biggest problem that increasing housing supply can solve is the gap between minimum and median apartment price. In places with very constrained housing markets the cheapest slumlord apartments are very expensive (~70-80%) compared to the price of well maintained apartments. Increasing housing supply doesn't do much to the median housing price (since new houses are expensive), but it lets the price of shitty apartments drop a ton.

> increasing supply isn't going to solve our many problems leading to widespread homelessness and financial insecurity

Why not?

(I guess I'm a "dunce", but I'm one that's ready for that conversation)

There are extractive and inclusive economic institutions. democracies tend to guarantee the latter, we are rapidly pursuing the former.

I guess I'll be the one to point out that the richest American demographic is the 50-95%. And the ~75-85% are the actual backbone of the economy, with their relentless spending.

If there is a reckoning, the most pain will be the demographic here on HN, living in the suburbs. Not the billionaires living in the Hamptons or Napa.

The fuel of this fire is white collar high earners. Its also why not much is probably going to change, because these people also vote a lot. It's not billionaires and Black Rock driving up home prices, that's for sure...

Isn't basically every decile getting richer (i.e. able to afford more things) thanks to economic growth?

I would say aversion to allowing economic growth is the true cause of inequality.

It creates austerity which means the wealthy do just fine while those with less suffer and overpay and transfer what little they do have to the wealthy.

Degrowth is a fundamentally unequal program which causes massive inequality and suffering. Only with growth does power lessen for those with the most.