This article is missing perhaps the most important graph, which is median income to some common monthly payment metric (e.g. average monthly payment for a 30 year mortgage with 20% down).
Reason being that the article mentions interest rates, but then just shows graphs comparing to sales price. Ironically, showing a metric that took interest rates into consideration would probably highlight why the current situation is even worse, because rates have skyrocketed but prices have only come down a little bit. Of course, as others have mentioned, that is because overall sales numbers have collapsed. Owners won't sell at a loss if they don't have to, and overall employment numbers are still high. But over time people are forced to sell for various reasons, so in 5 years prices will either go way down or stay flat as wage inflation catches up.
I think these days, proportion of cash buyers in the last several years was highest in history - inequality did it's job and most people who can afford buying a house, can afford buying it on cash. And before, prices were much lower so most certainly won't fall down back again, forcing banks to invoke foreclosures. So i don't even think rising rates or falling prices may cause a snowballing collapse like they did in 2008. It's permanent - inequality and urban concentration locked next generations out of affordable housing and there's likely nothing that can be done about it.
But in Europe, we lived like that for at least two generations now. This is what a stable state, fully urbanised society looks like. Here, it's typical for someone with a mid-level management position in a bank or an IT company, with million dollar net worth and managing dozens of employees, ride a train to job an hour each day, because they can't afford to rent in the city. And people who live in the city are simply those who's families bought pre-WWI. Or those with a regulated rent contract passed down generations from the 1950s, being an overwhelming portion of the family's effective net worth.
"Cache buyers" does not really mean people buy houses with their disposable funds. It means only that the deal does not involve a mortgage contract. The deal can still be financed through a loan, just not a mortgage. During the highly competitive market in 2021 people had been takin such loans to make cache offers and beat competition [1]. Also we had massive emigration from the states with high RE prices such as CA and NY to TX and FL, with much lower prices. These emigrants might have had enough equity in their old houses to buy a whole house in the new place too.
But it would really be great if your assertion had been true, in 2021 alone 6M houses had been sold so there would be at least several million people so rich that they buy houses like groceries.
People do eventually sell due to life events, even at a loss, in fact I'd say that is probably the primary cause of sales rather than anything financial in nature. At least anecdotally, I've sold twice and both times I would have had to do it even if it was at a loss.
However, you are correct that the price is pretty sticky at the moment.
Reason being that the article mentions interest rates, but then just shows graphs comparing to sales price. Ironically, showing a metric that took interest rates into consideration would probably highlight why the current situation is even worse, because rates have skyrocketed but prices have only come down a little bit. Of course, as others have mentioned, that is because overall sales numbers have collapsed. Owners won't sell at a loss if they don't have to, and overall employment numbers are still high. But over time people are forced to sell for various reasons, so in 5 years prices will either go way down or stay flat as wage inflation catches up.