Think of it like a hockey team. If your 4th line Center isn't good enough (or you don't have one) you're better off to add a player that is better than your BEST Center because that improves your 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th line. Improving your worst Center only improves your 4th line. Its like that but houses instead of players.
The math says you fix housing affordability by building more mansions. Poor people can't afford them and the actual price change is so small for the massive investment that its insane.
Building enough to push 250k houses to 200k would cost more money than the entire GDP and poor people still couldn't make the down payment.
Increasing the housing supply by 1% once again would imply building 7 million homes. Your top end homes cost 2-5 million. This is once again trillions of dollars.
Your post is like saying that in order to ensure everyone can afford groceries we ought to build more 5 star restaurants instead of giving out food stamps.
"scarcity" being supply, and "wealth" being supply of money which translates to demand for housing. "demand" is people's willingness to purchase something.
> Building enough to push 250k houses to 200k would cost more money than the entire GDP and poor people still couldn't make the down payment.
You have it exactly backwards. Like I say, you're too focused on the literal cost. 250k vs 200k is entirely based on supply and demand.
Lets say we want low income people to be able to afford 2 bedroom 1k sq/ft apartments. To achieve that we need to build more 3-5 bedroom 2k sq/ft places. The wealthy will want the nicer apartments which reduces demand for the 2 bedroom place and that's how they become affordable.
"Mansion" is entirely subjective. Its just a way to refer to the nicest homes available.
Well-being is based on production and production is not a zero-sum game. We can have low-income people living in high-end housing. All we have to do is keep building nice homes.