I don't think the problem is low interest writ large, but specifically attempts to prop up the homeownership market with debt.
There's a reason that post-2008 private lenders have basically backed out of the mortgage market and let Fannie Mae & Mac hold the bag, even in the context of so much more money chasing yields.
Demand does.
The notion is ridiculous - housing is extremely affordable in the US.
There absolutely is no affordability crisis.
There is merely 'a lot of people who want to live in SF and NYC'.
You don't have a right to move to a place and demand they tear down their homes so you can jam yourself in with others in a flat.
What is causing prices to increase is either:
a) more people b) interest rates or c) higher wages.
a - isn't happening rapidly (though partly) c - isn't really happening it's b, consistently over time causing greater and greater leverage.
Even with a very generous look at the general price index for homes, it is going up at a much higher rate than inflation. There's a reason that younger generations are buying homes at a much lower rate. The idea that there is no affordability issue just isn't rooted in reality.
> You don't have a right to move to a place and demand they tear down their homes so you can jam yourself in with others in a flat.
I'm not demanding that anyone tear down their homes. I think that if someone voluntarily sells their property to someone new, and that new person wishes to build a new construction on that property, they should be able to. It is a very new historical phenomenon that doing so (voluntarily building on your own land, not demanding that others tear down their homes) is difficult in major urban areas - that has not historically been the case.
It's pretty ridiculous to demand that people who "got there first" get to demand restrictions on how the "newcomers" get to use their legally acquired property.
Now go try and get that to happen in San Francisco in less than a decade.