[deathanatos]

At some point, there simply isn't going to be much choice; I have a job that now requires space for a home office, and at some point, a family will require space, and it can only be delayed so long. Rent goes up year after year without so much as skipping a beat for the pandemic, and so it might, in some ways, be nice to put that into equity — even equity that might crash — rather than just continuing to enrich my local landlords.

[stavros]

There isn't choice? That makes it sound like you're forced to spend 1M on a home. There are people with families and space requirement who don't even have 10k, let alone 1M. What choice do they have?

The issue isn't that rich people buy homes in rich areas, it's that they buy homes in poor areas and poor people can no longer afford to.

[mvc]

There really isn't a choice. Nobody pays more than they have to, to secure a house purchase. If the price paid is 1M, that's because that's the price the seller wanted. They'd have demanded that price whoever bought it. And if the price is 1M in whatever town we're gentrifying, then a similar house in SF would be considerably more (and thus not affordable).

I get the frustration with gentrification. But what's the alternative? Everyone must live and die in the town/city in which they were born? What's more, if nobody is coming to your town to live/work, it just slowly declines as the population ages out of work. Visit some of the old mining towns in the UK to see what that's like.

At least if you have a steady stream of incoming "rich people", then the entrepreneurial folk in the town have a chance at extracting some of that wealth.

[blitzar]

> That makes it sound like you're forced to spend 1M on a home

No they are 'forced' to buy a home.

The home that fulfills their needs is 1M. If they could find a home that fulfilled their needs for $5 and 10c they would spend $5.10 on their home.

The 'poor' person who sold their house to them in the poor area for $1mil ('where back in my day a house cost nothing') now has $1mil. The 'rich' person has a mortgage.

[stavros]

The poor person didn't have a house to sell. Poor people don't have assets. This discussion feels like talking to people from another reality.

I live in a country where $900/mo is considered a good salary. New 120 m^2 flats in my city now cost $600k because people from abroad have come in, bought stuff and raised prices. What are regular people here, who have no "houses to sell", supposed to do? Move away from the place they've lived for decades because people from rich countries are "forced" to buy a home?

Has nobody heard of gentrification?

[blitzar]

> Poor people don't have assets.

But they could afford before the gentrificaion.

They were not buying assets when they could afford them, they certainly are not buying assets now that they can not afford them. As you have written them off as "poor" for all eternity then they will never be able to afford them.

Therefore the purchase price of the property in question is entirely irrelevant to your poor person, those flats could be $6, $600k, or $6mil they are not buying them.

[spurgu]

Yeah, the same thing has happened in Malta.

[jelliclesfarm]

It could also mean that there is an erosion of poverty and more people want to buy property. Only the poverty is visible. The reality is that a larger percentage of the worlds population is more prosperous and richer and consuming/desiring luxury more than any other time of our planet’s existence.

[ironmagma]

Isn’t the issue equally that people (presumably poor people, since it’s poor neighborhoods) are selling their houses to rich buyers? It’s entirely possible to only sell to a poor person for a lower price.