That's my point, the data is obscured in such a way that all we see is an abstract price going up, but not how much of that price was directly or indirectly influenced by the cost of bureaucracy.
Permitting etc. is 0.5% to 2% of development costs, which is itself a small subset of what rent pays for, and only for the first 5-10 years.
This number would be $0 for most cups of coffee (made in paid-for buildings) and <$0.02 for pretty much all the remaining ones, I think?
Rent on the other hand is 15%+ for every cup of coffee in perpetuity (not counting second-order question of what % of wages go directly into residential rent).
Sorry I was actually making a less related comment than I initially indicated. I meant (loosely) indicating how much of new builds for things like developments in general go to bureaucracy or land, since in my city it seems like they heavily subsidize existing homeowners and have intensely increased in recent years, having the indirect effect of raising the floor and pulling up the ladder.
