3 ms·

> We have to start somewhere. We have people who say that we can't demolish houses as investments because it's one of the few remaining holds of generational, f

• ToucanLoucan 3y ago
  Because historically in the United States at least, the ability to pass down your wealth to your children has been one of few reliable ways to ensure your children aren't themselves thrown into the meat grinder of poverty. Hence why huge swaths of it are called "generational poverty:" their parents didn't have shit, and they too will not have shit. That the privileged groups have leveraged this to keep their children from suffering the same fate is not a bad thing. No one deserves to be squeezed dry like the poor are. But the notion that we need to replace houses for these people as a way to accomplish this is not wrong, and making whatever it is be not-houses is a way to get communities that were brutalized by red-lining the ability to accomplish the same thing. This is far above my pay grade. I just sick of the status-quo warriors endlessly citing the fact that we don't yet have a perfect solution as a reason to keep on using the broken current solution.
  • ta1243 3y ago
    How about raising the floor of poverty? As a wealthy parents you can already afford massive leg-ups with your children by supporting their education and offering the opportunities. How does inheriting 300k when they turn 50 help?
    • ToucanLoucan 3y ago
      In the current market, it's the only way many millennials and zoomers will ever own a home.
      • ta1243 3y ago
        Any many more won't be able to because their parents don't own a home? Carry on like that and you end up with the landed gentry and feudalism. Far better to ensure millennials (many who are now in their 40s) and zoomers can own a home regardless of their parents. One way would be to prevent generational transfer of wealth -- meaning that everyone is in the same boat, you have to work on your merits, rather than who your parents are.