I agree with the overall trend, but I'm not sure about the 1929 value
This article lists the cost of a new house (which is quite vague! what kind of house?) as USD 3,900 in 1938 ... and this would've been lower than the cost in 1929 because of the Great Depression:
https://www.newsweek.com/cost-living-midst-great-depression-1938-internet-reddit-1655302
So it's likely more useful to put the 1938 value into an inflation calculator:
https://www.officialdata.org/us/inflation/1938?amount=3900
Which yields USD 84,552.83 in 2023.
Moreover, undoubtedly a new house built in 2023 is quite a bit different (e.g., more energy efficient) than a new home built in either 1929 or 1938, which could account for a bit of price increase in itself. Who knows, even with the dollar being worth less in 1938 than it was in 1929, maybe housing technology increased that much in a decade to indeed allow for a new home to cost USD 2,000 more in just a decade. And then again, it's hard to know what people mean by a "new house" ... even just comparing two houses that we only know have the same number of bedrooms doesn't tell us anything else as to whether we are truly comparing apples to apples. For example the most obvious thing to affect the cost is location. A house overlooking the ocean in a place where everyone wants to live will cost more than the same house sited 50 miles from anything in a place no one wants to live like North Dakota ... at least so long as capitalism is what determines the cost of and access to and types of housing available, as well as whether housing is treated just as housing, or as the beatiful clusterf*ck of an "investment" vehicle.
No doubt greed is still driving up prices of everything beyond what inflation would, and with each passing decade we seem to move closer back to the Gilded Age robber barons running amok without regulation (thanks Republicans!).
In particular, housing does not seem like something which should be completely allocated via capitalism at all. As far as who gets to live with an ocean view and who does not, something like a lottery might replace market pricing of properties in different locations ... assuming it's even a good idea at all for people to still have access to single-family detached homes on a lot larger than the building, which wastes a lot of land and leads to environmentally-unfriendly things like installing and mowing lawns, and seems to encourage buying lots of crap no one even needs (when's the last time you saw anyone's garage actually being used as a garage, to protect a car from the elements and keep it looking new and keeping its resale value up, rather than being used as a storage unit while the car remains perpetually outside on the driveway?)
