2 ms·

That's the thrust of my post. It's not a financial problem. In London a lot of families own homes or have mortgages that are very small compared to current wag

That's the thrust of my post. It's not a financial problem. In London a lot of families own homes or have mortgages that are very small compared to current wages (so effectively owned if not quite yet). They're only 'wealthy' because external observers are valuing their home at silly amounts. Generally they're of very modest means otherwise. I think it's weird to call a family that bought a home 30 years ago in Inner London "ultra-wealthy". It basically just shows how odd the financial system is that we're attempting to put values on family homes this way.

Mvandenbergh 8y ago
They're only wealthy if their primary family home, often surrounded by their other family, places of employment, and friends are available for them to sell. If they have no intention of moving then it is indeed odd to count that as part of their wealth in the same way as cash or shares. Incidentally this is the same reason why the Catholic Church is not rich. It looks like it if you value the land on which their churches sit at the development value they would fetch if sold... but running those churches is their primary purpose! So they could only realise that value by shutting down their only reason for existing.