4 ms·
I had to read these comments twice, because I had assumed the "families" were the immigrants and the "four working adults" were yuppies, both in line with my ow
by mindslight 4y ago
I had to read these comments twice, because I had assumed the "families" were the immigrants and the "four working adults" were yuppies, both in line with my own experience. It's not immigration that has screwed over family formation - it's the housing racket itself, backed up by oppressive monetary policy that sucks real wealth into the financial industry. Making home ownership into a (guaranteed) investment combined with the individualist ideal of everyone needing their own house has done the equivalent of making everyone start off life with significant debt, and the time to pay it off becomes ever longer.
- harvey9 4y agoIt's both, at different market segments. Four yuppies (who are sometimes skilled visa-holders) sharing a higher end place, or four less well-off sharers (who are sometimes illegal migrants).
- mindslight 4y agoSure, but it's a bit odd to direct focus at immigrants when it's many different market segments. If anything, immigrants are generally more willing to live poorer with traditional gender roles, having children in spite of the extractive economic conditions. It's the native born who put it off waiting for the right time.
- goodSteveramos 4y agoThe purpose of a state is not to bring in foreigners to replace the native population. It even rises to a low level UN definition of genocide when the native population is not allowed to express its disapproval of that policy.
- mindslight 4y agoThe "genocide" you speak of is due the general economic policies across the board, which have nothing to do with immigration. Shoehorning the overall problem into a myopic complaint about immigration doesn't accomplish much besides neutralizing your own political stake.