Piecemeal sales aren't affected by the total amount though? If I'm a billionaire vs a 100 Billionaire, I'm still taking out the same amounts to live and buy yachts.
Also, as far as I can tell, it's not these 9 Billionaires hoovering up housing in the valley either. They all utmost have 2-3 properties, most of the rest of the market remains unaffected by this inequality.
In this local context, Citizens United is irrelevant too, most of the state MP's and local council members are not funded by the Billionaires and do not need to kowtow to their policy preferences.
So how exactly is inequality driving the cost of living?
EDIT: I do wish someone would actually answer this question. Everytime I bring this up I get yelling (or downvotes) in response. I agree Citizens United has really changed how Billionaires are able to affect federal elections, but in these local cases like "Silicon Valley", how does inequality affect the cost of living? This is a sincere question.
High rent means high wages, which means high costs for business, which means high prices for consumers...
States like Texas keep housing low, which means lower wages for workers and lower prices for consumers, but I don't want us to artificially impoverish people in order to achieve the goal of "affordability."
Instead we have to lower rent without lowering income as much. This would cause an explosion in average spending power and therefore a much stronger middle class.
Great right? Yes it would be, except for the landlords, real estate investors, and middle aged homeowners who will do anything and hurt almost anyone to keep the value of their properties artificially inflated to preposterous levels. Unfortunately, those are the people in charge in most cities.