Wife and I are going through the home buying process in what most people would call a low cost of living area. For reference, homes are about 180-400k where I live in New York State.

I heard the horror stories but I had no idea how bad the issue is. I'll get to that in a minute.

I am curious what's going to happen with housing. Because on one hand, it seems like it's going to continue to rise until there is genuinely no such thing as middle-class home ownership. On the other hand, I see some troubling signs that remind me of a bubble.

The housing market will continue to be unaffordable
-I keep hearing that it's a supply issue. That we need to double the number of houses for things to get better. I also hear this isn't happening and that immigration is a factor. Sounds like a dog whistle but I'm curious if there is any truth to this.

-Other developed nations are worse. Many have 40-50 year mortgages and some countries even have multi-generational mortgages. This shows that it could get worse.

-Companies and wealthy individuals trying to make us all rent forever. Of course they would like nothing more and they'll probably keep working on this.

The current market is not sustainable

-There is a feeding frenzy on every single home that goes for sale in my area. Total shit boxes with sagging roofs are selling no problem and way above asking.

-The bank approved my wife and I for way too much money. We have student loans and daycare costs. The amount they approved us for would absolutely put us in the negatives every month. I thought that wasn't supposed to happen anymore. It feels strange and reckless for the banks to do that. For reference, we make about 100k/year combined but student loans and childcare take up a significant chunk of that. They approved us for $300k to get a home. We could get a $2400/mo* mortgage, which immediately wipes out 50% of our take-home pay. We ran a budget and even avoiding any purchases that aren't literal necessities, we would be running a deficit every month. We could never buy a shirt, a baby toy, a makeup product, a movie ticket, or even a pair of shoes and we would still be in the negative. Nevermind what would happen if one of our very modest, very used vehicles needed to be replaced or repaired. Obviously we didn't bid anything near 300k on any home. Wife's mom offered to front some inheritance money (give my wife some money now and then just leave the inheritance to her sister to make up for it) and we weren't even close still.

-When did a married nurse and teacher become completely priced out of the market? Is that a sign of a normal and healthy market? Now, to be fair, my wife could increase her salary if she wanted to go back to working in the emergency room. She doesn't want to do that while we have a baby at home and I understand that completely. But you would think we would be able to afford something.

I am clearly speaking from a position of relative privilege here. I recognize that. I grew up in a foreclosed and auctioned home that was old and small. My parents moved to an economically depressed town to get that house because they had no money and no help. There was no "borrowing a few grand from an inheritance" for them and if my wife wasn't in the picture that would never be an option for me either. I think my wife and I are doing a lot better than many other people in this area. What are couples who work at Amazon doing? Just saying fuck it and renting forever?

Anyway, I'm half venting and half asking. What is the actual endgame here for Americans? What happens next?

Random thought. What if we taxed property based on the area per person of the property, as opposed to sale value?

Edit and quick intro to those who mostly rent: most real property in the US, especially residential property, is taxed yearly based on some variation of something called "fair market value," usually assessed by a local tax assessor's office

I'm proposing that a property would be taxed for every square meter of space per person in the designated property unit. It can't be totally simplified, but should be fairly straightforward. There could also be progressive brackets. It might not make make sense to apply it strictly per person, but rather for a typical use. That is, we would assume "single family residential" properties to house 3.4 (totally made up number) people per house and property.

The goal of this is to find a fair, market-driven incentive to build density into urban cores.

A similar approach could be applied to commercial space (but probably not industrial).

It could be coupled with a sales tax (currently missing in most real property tax regimes, at least in the US) to capture runaway property valuations in certain jurisdictions.

Alternatively, we could drop the property value based tax rate (but not eliminate it), and then add a per person-area surcharge.

It's not meant to increase revenue, although it could certainly be used that way. It could also be use to decrease revenue, and maybe that would be a good way to sell it. But at the end of the day, developers and residents would both have an incentive to pursue as dense development as possible, even if there is not a density driving pressure of desirablity, which only exists in a few really cool urban cores.