“The house are already selling at half the cost it would take to build them.”
Due to labor, union labor, or materials? Already built houses should not (as history has shown) appreciate, they haven’t much for a 100 years of 116 year history (the last years being the boom) when inflation is adjusted out. Also, unless vast improvements are made, historically older houses depreciate with age, so they should be lower than the price to build new anyway.
There are of course outliers, such as a highly desirable area, where people are actually moving to, in response to something local, which would increase demand, but that’s not the standard, it’s the exception.
“That is way under a normal selling price.”
Not historically. But in the last 50 years as the dollar has been dropping in value, the nominal price has been increasing, but with inflation ruled out, houses don’t appreciate just by existing. As they age they are worth less, by the average price of an existing “standard” house on the market doesn’t change much in price.
There is no union labor building residential houses. That is a side point though.
I should have been more clear in my post. A brand new home, built in a new development and no more that two years old can be purchased now for less than it cost to build.
I'm sure the other points your bring up are correct. I was just not clear in explaining my statement was talking about new homes, not older ones.