5 ms·

The point is that you can live at a place you can't afford to buy. If not rent, then a mortgage is waiting for you, but at the same time your responsibilities i

• TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
  This is not a credible line of argument. Other countries - notably Finland and Austria, among others - have no problem providing reasonable state housing at reasonable cost. Finland houses its homeless as a matter of course because it turns out to be hugely cheaper than the alternatives, economically and politically. Some of those countries also score well on affordable private home ownership. America doesn't - because the idea of a government that buffers its citizens from private sector exploitation is against the guiding creed of economic narcissism.
  • tiborsaas 4y ago
    Comparing developed nations to America is kinda unfair, but ok :) My point was that just because somebody is a landlord it's not the root of all evil. (I'm not one). Governments can and do create programs to support families (too bad for singles in my country) but at the end getting all this for free is probably a utopia. Affordable home ownership exists everywhere, but nobody wants to move to most of those places, people need more than a roof above their heads, but that comes at a cost.