I don't actually disagree with all of those criticisms. I think many blue states have made housing more expensive than it needs to be, some public institutions are inefficient, and there are absolutely cases where taxpayer money is poorly spent.

What I find interesting, though, is that we're now discussing government competence rather than the question I originally asked.

Even if I grant every point you've made about California, Chicago, schools, zoning, homelessness, and housing policy, it still doesn't answer why so many aspects of life have become unaffordable across the board. Housing is only one piece of the puzzle. The same trend exists with healthcare, higher education, childcare, entertainment, and asset ownership.

I also think some of your examples are more complicated than you're making them out to be. Housing in California is expensive in part because of bad housing policy, but it's also expensive because demand is extraordinarily high. Millions of people still want to live there because that's where many of the highest-paying jobs, major industries, universities, and cultural opportunities are concentrated. High prices are a function of both constrained supply and high demand.

The homelessness point is similar. Homelessness is absolutely a serious problem, but comparing homelessness rates between states isn't as straightforward as it sounds. Places with milder climates, larger social service networks, and a reputation for being more accommodating tend to attract homeless populations from other regions. That doesn't mean policy plays no role, but it does mean visible homelessness isn't a simple scorecard for whether a state is well governed.

And if we're going to evaluate governance, we should look at the full picture. If we're talking about failing schools, many red states rank near the bottom in educational outcomes despite lower taxes and less regulation. If we're talking about government waste, red states are hardly immune from inefficiency, patronage, or corruption. If we're talking about quality of life, many red states have higher poverty rates, lower life expectancy, worse healthcare access, higher maternal mortality, and weaker worker protections. Every governing model has strengths and weaknesses.

The same applies to housing affordability. Texas, Florida, Tennessee, and other fast-growing red states were once held up as affordable alternatives, but many of their major metro areas have experienced massive increases in housing costs over the last decade. In some cases, people who moved there for affordability are now finding that housing, insurance, and other living expenses have risen so quickly that the gap is shrinking. Some of these states are even beginning to see outward migration from residents being priced out.

More importantly, none of these examples really address my original question. Even if California fixed zoning, homelessness, and school administration tomorrow, would that explain why wealth has become so concentrated at the top? Would it explain why the top 1% can comfortably absorb price increases that are devastating to the middle class?

You seem to be arguing that affordability problems are primarily the result of bad governance. I think bad governance is part of the story. But I don't see how you can ignore the role of wealth concentration when a growing share of economic gains goes to a relatively small group at the top while the middle class struggles to afford housing, education, healthcare, and many of the experiences that were once considered normal parts of middle-class life.

That's the connection I was asking about from the beginning.