|
|
|
|
|
|
by throwawaysea
2648 days ago
|
|
|
But it's not interfering with a "transfer of the reins". The "next generation" that you're referring to has options - they can certainly make a life in numerous other locations. Instead they are coveting one of the most desirable places in the world, and want that location and its people to change in significant ways to accommodate them. I don't think that's the prior generation interfering as much as the next generation exhibiting entitlement - the entitlement of wanting scarce, highly-valued things, without creating the necessary value to earn it (that is, possessing the necessary wealth). Moreover, I don't know that your perspective is uniform across any generation. |
|
|
Hey that's just too bad you've been priced out of the place you grew up. That's just the market. That's the breaks. Hey, you have options in other places. Quit being entitled!
Instead they are coveting one of the most desirable places in the world, and want that location and its people to change in significant ways to accommodate them.
Instead techies moving there for the sweet, sweet high paying jobs are coveting the most desirable places in the world, and want that location and its people to change in significant ways to accommodate them. The big difference is that they have the money, so they're the ones that get their way. The golden rule: he who has the gold, writes the rules. Again, it's all well and good. It's all legal and within the letter of the law. In an overall view, is such an approach really that smart and benevolent? If you look at it a certain way, no, I don't think that's benevolent and wise.
I don't think that's the prior generation interfering as much as the next generation exhibiting entitlement - the entitlement of wanting scarce, highly-valued things, without creating the necessary value to earn it
Living where you grew up is now entitlement. If you want to live where you grew up, you're going to have to create the necessary value. What, are you entitled!? Again, that's the market reality. That's all technically legal, technically correct. It's still kinda crappy if you look at it from a different point of view.
If it weren't for a certain California law, nearly all of the easily accessible beaches would be owned or indirectly access-controlled by rich people. If it weren't for a certain California law, that condition would be simply market reality. It would be technically legal. It would be technically correct. It would definitely be kinda crappy, though.
It's in the long term interest of us techies to act in ways that are good and benevolent, and show some forbearance in certain matters, even though our market power and money allow us to do it anyways. Social unrest is caused by perceived relative inequality. Wouldn't being forced out of your childhood home by richer people feel quite "unequal?" That said, the answer isn't to try and legislate equality, as that is shown to have the opposite effect. The answer is a market which creates enough housing for all segments of society to live in the "desirable places in the world." That's how they become and stay the "desirable places in the world."
Moreover, I don't know that your perspective is uniform across any generation.
Fair enough.