My inability to not afford housing in the places that I want to live in are not an outcome based on “efficient markets”.
The cost of housing in major American cities is largely determined by whether they can build more housing to meet demand and lower costs. The new housing is blocked most often by people who already live there.
So now the question is how different groups with opposing interests might apply power to get their desired outcome.
I can’t live in Monte Carlo, for example, even though it looks quite lovely. And I accept that, because that’s how reality works.
He simply needs to take the personal responsibility to make it achievable vs capitulate to some strange reasoning of "it's not my fault I can't afford it, it's their fault because XYZ".
The question is whether the people who cook my food, do my laundry, plumb my home, deliver seltzer to my bodega, butcher chicken in my grocery store should be able to afford to live within a reasonable distance of my home. We can choose to build cities that make it nearly impossible for them to do so and for them to live in constant fear of homelessness (with many eventually sliding into it) or we can build ones where they can comfortably afford a modest home.