Your entire argument is disingenuous as it does not defend the affordability of housing, it defends the affordability of borrowed money. Any sensible person recognizes that just because they can qualify and stretch to make a minimum monthly payment on something does not make the underlying asset more "affordable". 

I thought you were an economist? If that is the case, why are you not considering the larger picture: the massive, unprecedented misallocation of capital? Why are you not addressing the massive risk of highly-leveraged mortgages? Why are you not assessing the opportunity cost of having huge multiples of the average income go to the purchase price of a home? Where is the consideration of how the CHMC has enabled lax lending by placing the risk on taxpayers? "Forced saving"? Who are you, to tell people that massive debt is a good thing, because it forces them to "save"?

Sure, you can afford a house. As long as you don't want to retire, or put your kids through university.