[jrock08]

> Any policy that would cause people to be forced from their homes just because should be viewed as a failure.

I have a really really hard time feeling bad for people who bought homes in the bay area in ~1980. They won the lottery. Their home grew 10% y/y for 30 years outpacing inflation by a significant margin. They got a 30 year tax break while their income likely outpaced inflation as well because they live in an extremely good job market. That house they bought for 100k is now worth 1.7 Million. They can sell the home, move basically anywhere else in the country, and retire on the remaining gain. Yeah, I'm having a hard time feeling too bad for them.

On the other hand, the person who moved to SF in 1980 and decided to rent, I feel bad for them. Unless they found a rent controlled apartment, they've seen their rents grow 10% y/y, and if they found a rent controlled apartment they probably got evicted when the owners of the property sold it, and the new owners decided they wanted to redo the property as condos.

Lets just call it what it is, rent control for rich people. Then maybe we'll talk about it sensibly and realize that it's a horribly thought out plan.

[kamaal]

>>I have a really really hard time feeling bad for people who bought homes in the bay area in ~1980. They won the lottery.

>>On the other hand, the person who moved to SF in 1980 and decided to rent, I feel bad for them.

Instead of punishing people for being successful. The latter people should ponder on their foolishness, instead of blaming other people for being more intelligent.

Last time I check making good decisions about one's future is not a vice.

[jrock08]

If only home ownership weren't correlated with generational wealth. Then we'd have a meritocracy, and you could dismiss people renting as bad decision makers. In the real world, people rent because they can't afford to buy a home.

[kamaal]

>>In the real world, people rent because they can't afford to buy a home.

In real world, you can always bootstrap your way to a decent nest egg, whether its a retirement fund or a home. It takes time, and it takes hard work. But is very possible and a lot of people do it.

If you can't, then evaluate your spending patterns seriously. I haven't met any person yet who didn't have wasteful expenditure that couldn't be eliminated.

More often than not its not the means/resources, its lack of resourcefulness. People in general don't have the motivation to take steps towards solving a difficult problem, and the discipline to suffer through a grind and see it through to the end. This of course is a very different problem, the responsibility of which starts and ends at a individual alone.

[SolaceQuantum]

>I haven't met any person yet who didn't have wasteful expenditure that couldn't be eliminated

People who are poor or improvised deserve to live a life that also allows them to have something enjoyable, including hobbies. It shouldn't beconsidered a lack of discipline that an impoverished person could maybe enjoy their life once in a while. It's depressing how much one can expect a life of misery of they're poor.

[st3v3r]

"In real world, you can always bootstrap your way to a decent nest egg"

No, not really. Especially given housing prices now.

[kamaal]

There is a always a house at some location X you can buy now, which will be unaffordable 20 years from now.

[guard-of-terra]

What if it happens to be far far away from where your career proceeds?

You have now to choose between growing your house value or nurturing your career.

[st3v3r]

However, that location X is not always feasible to move to and work from. So it's worthless to discuss all location X. Instead, you should be focusing on locations Y, which are.

[st3v3r]

Why the hell should they have to move, though? They bought a home in that area because they wanted to be there. Why should they be forced from their home because you have some kind of hard on for punishing people who got lucky?