3 ms·

We'll just have to agree to disagree. You can hide it behind fancy words but what you want to do is force existing residents who own their homes out in the nam

We'll just have to agree to disagree. You can hide it behind fancy words but what you want to do is force existing residents who own their homes out in the name of 'economic growth'. I don't have to agree with that. > when people can make a decision 40 years ago and get to control scarce resources from that point until they die. Yes, that's what buying something is. I don't want to live in a world in which everything is simply rented. We should be helping people get _out_ of that, not dragging them in to it.

lovich 8y ago
What is want is for retirees to not be able to keep subsequent generations far away from the same opportunities they enjoyed when they were the same age and raising families. Economic growth is the lever I happen to think can accomplish this best. If you've got a personal issue with that idea, then I'd be just as fine with not allowing you to live within city limits once you retire/reach 65/some similar metric. The older generation is strangling the subsequent ones, and their countries, because they refuse to change anything about their lives. This is forcing the younger generations to miss out on all the aspects of life that the older generations thought we're important and enjoyed in their youth. When I hear a retire complain about proposed housing _and_ ask their 30 year old children why they haven't given them grandkids yet, all I can think is that brought that on themselves. They don't live on an island, and the choices they are making have downstream affects on everyone