No sense in being "~ist" against any rather spurious category of the population. I do not believe in words like "boomer", "Gennzed" and the like.
I agree the money just goes round and round and I wonder where the "used up" myth comes from. Envy perhaps.
Your second paragraph calls for exactly what was done in Great Britain the 1930s - 50, perhaps 60s. These were called "Council Houses" and were established in smaller towns as well as cities; and were still rentded from their local councils until the 1980s.
Although most of these had been built on green fields due to the limited availability of former industrial sites in that era.
The clue to why it was abandoned lies partly in that "housing ladder" dream I think partly responsible for low availabiulity of homes: the developers are only interested in selling to those already up the ladder.
Then in the 1980s is the Conservative government had a dream of "everyone" being able to own their own homes, giving council tenants the right to buy the homes they had been renting.
Unfortunately, this was a flawed idea and it failed, unsurprisingly; but successive governments of both Conservative and Labour majorities have failed to reverse the policy and its problems. Instead between them, they have developed so-called "Housing Associations" (large commercial companies notorious for neglecting the properties physically) offering rental homes to those whom the ladder can never be theirs to climb; and encouraging sprawling, green-field, housing-estates bearing little or no connection to genuine local needs and services.
In the UK the speculators are required to build a proportion of so-called "affordable homes" (based on the area's mean salaries) but it is a small proportion. Nor are they required to consider, let alone provide, for local employment, health services, schools, etc. Indeed many of the largest housing estates are built not far from railway-stations to suit people commuting very long distances to city-offices.
Nor are they banned from "land-banking" and similarly, what I call "investment by dereliction". These practices gain the land or existing buildings then leave them untouched for long enough for the eventual building costs to be absorbed by the land-value rise; so the house sales price is pure profit.
To add insult to injury the former, strict local-authority controls on building quality by independent, Local-Government inspectors have been replaced by "codes" governed by the building industry. Since much of that is in the hands of huge companies owned by mere money-men who would not know mortar from concrete, and do not care, the quality of many new homes is now poor, by cost-cutting and also by shortages of skilled trades-people. (The old system of training in any industry by genuine apprenticeships supported by county-council run "Technical Colleges" has been swept away, and property-speculators won't pay for proper training. We have also suffered from some decades of a strange notion that the only educational worth-while is a Degreem and the only work worth doing is on a computer.)
I do not know how much of that is paralleled in your country
