[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.