It doesn't seem like an uncorrelated observation that "construction worker" is one of the most undesirable occupations, alongside "janitor" and "line cook". If it's a terrible career, only the people lacking options will choose it.
Housing, healthcare and education are the three sectors infamously outpacing inflation in the modern economy. In the latter two, workers usually have at least a decent, if not good, career prospect. Construction, meanwhile, is considered a gig for noncitizens who can't be hired in the regular economy — notwithstanding the special subsets like electricians and plumbers.
Part of this likely has to do with the incredible amount of unemployment risk faced by a construction worker; construction volumes may plummet in any region at any time, forcing workers to move hundreds of kilometers away or change jobs entirely. Worse, these fluctuations are often correlated among regions, practically guaranteeing that many builders will be out of a job in downturns. Education and healthcare, at least, suffer almost none of this, despite other stressors.
One mitigation may be a sort of "Keynesian public housing" apparatus: while the populist thing to do is to call for public housing when prices are at their highest, this just puts more strain on a squeezed construction market. But if the state picks up the slack during downturns by specifically building small, affordable-type (if not explicitly subsidized) units, it may maintain employment volumes and (long-run) prevent lower-class pain during housing booms, while the units built will not directly compete with the sort of large & luxurious housing built by the private sector.