The complaint is that good jobs are accruing to particular areas, through nothing the inhabitants of those areas have done, and then the locals are using that accrual of jobs to boost their own property prices.

Housing in a specific locality is a weird luxury item because people often don’t really want the housing, they want access to the job market.

So an underlying question is “are we okay with citizens enriching themselves by gatekeeping the good jobs behind a paywall?”

Their desire to enforce scarcity is causing societal issues as workers demand more wages to pay for the housing, prices of everything go up as a result of wage demands (among other things), and the US deals with its citizens funneling ever greater portions of their income to housing.

There are a few problems with that statement.

Less expensive homes tend to be in regions that lack jobs. Most of these regions also lack adequate infrastructure for remote work. Many of these regions also lack the resources for people to meaningfully live off the land, never mind the resources and infrastructure to generate income off the land.

This isn't really an example of capitalism. It is extraordinarily rare for people to be compelled to surrender their property to facilitate development. It is far more common for property owners to be denied the right to develop their own property in the manner they wish due to restrictions imposed by the government.

Quite often this isn't even an example of democracy. A group going to city council to lobby against a development is not necessarily representative of the community as a whole. Zoning laws developed fifty years ago don't necessarily represent the interests of people today. Then you have complicating factors. Democratically elected representatives at the provincial and federal level may be pushing for more housing because the population as a whole is pushing for more housing, while city counsellors are opposing development since the people who voted for them oppose development. Who's voice is more important? When everyone is saying: we need more housing, but not in my neighbourhood, how do we decide where housing gets built?

Finally: while some housing is luxury housing, housing is not a luxury item. People should not be denied access to housing due to income. People should not be denied access to housing in a reasonable location due to income. By reasonable location I mean things like reasonable physical access to employment, education, transportation, and material necessities (e.g. food). The environment should also be safe. In other words, that penthouse suite on the waterfront is a luxury item. An apartment within thirty minutes of the shipyards, in a community with a grocer, a school, a low crime rate, and isn't a former toxic waste dump is not luxury housing.