It is a major national emergency, but average voters don't care about it, because almost no politician is willing to address it -- there's no one to vote for, who would try to fix it.
Even politicians who are struggling with this specific issue themselves refuse to address it. (Members of Congress struggling to afford to maintain housing on $174k salaries, would rather petition for more money, than to make housing more affordable)
It's 18 minutes and 37 seconds of your time. I encourage you to watch it. The answer to the question Professor Galloway asks (I won't spoil it) is a resounding "no", based on policy decisions being made.
> The median age of voting House lawmakers is 57.9 years, down from 58.9 in the 117th Congress (2021-22), 58.0 in the 116th (2019-20) and 58.4 in the 115th (2017-18). The new Senate’s median age, on the other hand, is 65.3 years, up from 64.8 in the 117th Congress, 63.6 in the 116th and 62.4 in the 115th.
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it ...
An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning: another instance of the fact that the future lies with the youth.
It's an observation, not an proposal. And its are worrisome one if true, because the young people are constantly exposed to quiet extreme opinions, lies and outrage influencers etc.
I.e. we've got people unironically saying they'd rather have their kids encounter a brown bear in the woods then an unknown man. That's how delusional people are becoming.
If the observation holds true, then the next 60+ years are basically locked into getting extremely bad...
That seems exceptionally high, and maybe true in some areas, but in others a "total home" permit is a flat fee on the final price, and that flat fee isn't 60%.
I think Galloway missed the mark on new housing construction (he's right wrt supply, but falls short wrt causes, from my quick review of the talk he may have been scoping to Vancouver BC specifically), there is a ton of nuance. It is a combination of permitting, zoning ("NIMBY/YIMBY" here fore brevity), cost of capital, and builders incentivized to deliver supply only so quickly.
Part of it is also that trying to solve local problems at the federal level can often just result in more insanity.
Around here from empty lot to built house is about 6 months, and that's within an hour of a major airport.
However, the builders are taking relatively little risk on each house/development, because if it falls through (unlikely) they're only out one house, and might lose a small amount or just hold the land and wait.
When the only developments you can do are multi-million, the risks now rise.
Even politicians who are struggling with this specific issue themselves refuse to address it. (Members of Congress struggling to afford to maintain housing on $174k salaries, would rather petition for more money, than to make housing more affordable)