I struggle to take what is ultimately an unintentional display of the author's privilege seriously. There is no political will to reverse course on 70-odd years of redbaiting that would be a required first step toward any of the changes to resource distribution that would be required to avoid the economy collapsing when jobs start getting scarce. Shoulda coulda woulda oughta, whatever, Big Money threatens capital flight whenever a modest adjustment to simple taxation is suggested. There is no future in which they willingly submit to the kind of redistribution that would be required to finance a society where work is optional.

The what now? I'm struggling to take this seriously because a decade ago regex where common knowledge, like if you don't have a handle on this you should probably go get a job in marketing levels of common knowledge. Has the profession fallen off this far in ten years?

Probably because the sentence you quoted and responded to points explicitly to gentrification as a primary driver of the phenomenon in question. You know, that thing you said was false, untrue, and entirely made up?

"It's all just shortage driven gentrification in every example I have been pointed to in recent times."

Fair enough, allow me to provide a few counter-examples from the regional housing market:

- three massive mixed-use development projects (in different local cities) each added thousands of rental units and mixed walkable retail to what were aging downtown-adjacent neighborhoods. Demand in this quadrant of the city spiked in response. Home prices (regardless of age or condition) in a 10 block radius tripled over the course of 4 years. Surrounding commercial real estate owners where quick to pick up on the increase in traffic and promptly raised commercial rents, driving the majority of pre-existing businesses out. These were (entirely predictably) replaced by national franchises. Area residential landlords, seeing rising commercial rents and real estate prices promptly increased rents.

- There is a phenomenon in local "blue collar" neighborhoods where developers are buying a handful of adjacent lots, scraping the existing structures, subdividing the parcels, and then putting up these utterly vile two and three story skinny block houses that combine all of the worst aspects of private home ownership and apartment living. These new units are generally priced between 175% and 500% of the pre-existing average of similarly sized houses in these neighborhoods. In every neighborhood I've bothered to watch where these things have gone up the sell price of for housing in these neighborhoods has gone up between roughly 75% to 200% over a ~4 year period following. During the same time period cost of similarly sized houses in similar neighborhoods in the area has increased by maybe a 3rd, which suggests that blanket demand for the area isn't the primary driver of the increase.

- Then there's the time two county planning boards colluded with the largest developer in the state to conjure a medium sized bedroom community from thin fucking air (well a swamp actually but you get the idea). ~1k new units added to the market a year for the last decade, targeting the entire spectrum from "affordable" apartments to two golf course communities. The price of housing and lots have skyrocketed in the surrounding area, to the point that section 8 landlords in neighborhoods 10 miles away are backing out of their agreements so they can capitalize on the increase in local rents.

The one thing all of these instances have in common is new capacity was added to an area and local rents and real estate prices increased rapidly.

Nah, what actually happens is the lower rung housing is either flipped to capture the increase in area pricing or the lot gets scraped, again to capture the increase in area pricing.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...

Someone should tell the local housing market that then, because this pattern has consistently manifest over the last 20 years here. Without exception everyone I've seen make this claim isn't invested in residential real estate and hasn't closely watched how prices shift in response to new construction. In any event if you're trying to advance the claim that gentrification is a myth you're going to need to bring some serious proof to back that.

You correctly indicate that all of this is a transfer of wealth to those individuals who are already wealthy. Where you're mistaken is in suggesting this is a generational transfer when it is corporations and by extension the 0.01% of the wealthiest individuals in our society that are the clear beneficiaries.