The issue is that we live in an era were a 2-bedroom house is already something people can start giving up on. So the threshold for whats attainable is getting lower and lower, and soon enough just food will be enough.
And then you will be lectured on how prosperous a country it is and how big the GDP is, probably by a foreigner lol.
And commute is unacceptable, for some even 20 mins according to same topic being discussed also here ad nausea.
Btw having a house is a luxury basically anywhere in the world, not sure why the baseline expectation is that its some UN-enforced basic human right. I for example lived, live and will live in apartments only which cost less than 50% of similarly-sized house and derive life satisfaction other things than gardening and constant upkeep of property. Really not getting this want-luxury-as-baseline mindset.
If the average person/family cannot work hard, save, and purchase their own safe, comfortable, living accommodations, the implication is that the landowning class will forever co-opt an increasing percentage of the economic surplus for one of the most essential goods - shelter. There is only so much adequately zoned land, and so much housing on that land. Populations, and increasing, and therefore so is demand.
You are absolutely welcome to forego property ownership if you like. There are many benefits in terms of flexibility (e.g. ability to quickly move somewhere else). But this is typically not an economically advantageous move in the long term if you're staying rooted in one place. And having dealt with toxic, abusive landlords, there is an understated element of psychological safety to ownership.
We're not just talking about big cities. We're talking about suburbs too, and even more "rural" areas that are still within a few hours of a city. Essentially where 90+% of the population actually lives.
This is not a first-world-tech-bro complaint. It is a genuine economic problem for us that affects the vast majority of people who live here, and therefore the country as-a-whole.
People would not have voted for a moronic despot had he not been promising what they've all been asking for - a radical reshaping of the system that hasn't been working for the vast majority. People cannot afford the American dream that they were promised, and they are angry about it.
Majority lives in urban areas.
People are upset about it because together those things, plus the end of the pension somewhat earlier, mean the death of the middle class, the idea of which was a pretty big part of American post-war identity.
More economic drag on getting educated, more economic drag on becoming a property owner and the security that provides, healthcare costs are a drag on accumulating money for younger generations and will soak up anything their parents managed to accumulate. Middle class = dead.
Also yes, they want to live where the jobs are. If compromise on location means "being unemployed" then most just cant afford it.
Getting used to living in an apartment is a smaller issue in my opinion.