Housing Affordability and WFH

Reading and reflecting on this: https://www.nahb.org/news-and-economics/press-releases/2023/02/boosting-housing-production-is-best-way-to-ease-the-affordability-crisis 

Because the workplace has been brought 'in-house' for 30% of the population due to WFH, it has created a huge surge in demand for larger homes. Quick and easy solution to surging housing demand for office space would just be to make the glut of office-space available to WFH folks, and have companies set in place some sort of 'office space reimbursement'.

Turns out, a lot of people are happy to pay that premium for housing because it's a better deal than the huge premium (time & cost) they were already paying for commuting. Shifting half their commute costs (say 5% of income) to housing costs is a net gain to WFH folks. Cutting the cord to the office benefits both owners and renters. Owner-occupiers convert money being spent on a depreciating asset (a car) to money being spent on an appreciating asset (a house). And both renters and owners no longer need to pay rents (equivalent rents) for a location within commuting distance of work. WFH is a special perk for two-income households--location can now be chosen on the basis of where one person works, rather than awkwardly splitting the difference.

So will building more homes stop inflation? Probably not. Part of what is driving inflation is a semi-permanent shift in consumer preferences toward larger, less centrally located residences. But in housing, the stock dominates (because housing is very very durable). Theoretically, if we double the rate of construction, that's still perhaps 1% of the total. And increasingly the supply by a few percentage points doesn't really cure the demand mismatch that's driving inflation.