[akmiller]

I'm not an economist but if you listen to Gary Stevenson talk about this very issue he discusses it in depth. But, when it comes down to it if EVERYTHING is getting more expensive that looking at on variable in one market can't be the crux of the issue.

When you have large transfers of wealth and the wealth gap grows significantly the only thing for rich people to do is buy up assets. Assets are fixed, so the share of assets owned by rich people are drastically increasing. This is inline with the # of houses owned by private investors and #'s of assets owned by other investors will reveal the same thing.

[bpt3]

> But, when it comes down to it if EVERYTHING is getting more expensive that looking at on variable in one market can't be the crux of the issue.

Everything isn't getting more expensive. For example, housing prices and rents have gone down in areas where restrictions on new residential construction have been reduced.

> When you have large transfers of wealth and the wealth gap grows significantly the only thing for rich people to do is buy up assets.

That's not the only thing for rich people to do, but it is something people who make smart financial decisions do.

> Assets are fixed, so the share of assets owned by rich people are drastically increasing.

They aren't fixed in any asset class, so there's no real reason to explore your point here.

> This is inline with the # of houses owned by private investors and #'s of assets owned by other investors will reveal the same thing.

CA actually has a lower than average percentage of homes owned by investors, and I haven't seen any evidence it's increasing by a meaningful amount.