9 ms·
It doesn't work because then couples with no kids get paid enough for 2 families, invest in housing, raise the prices for everyone else, then maybe have their o
by jemmyw 2y ago
It doesn't work because then couples with no kids get paid enough for 2 families, invest in housing, raise the prices for everyone else, then maybe have their own kids a decade later than the norm, forcing everyone else to be 2 worker families who can never catch up. And that's where we're at now.
- autoexec 2y ago> It doesn't work because then couples with no kids get paid enough for 2 families That's fine too. Couples without children will always have much more money than couples who do. It's not a problem when couples who do have children can still afford to live a good life. It won't destroy the housing market either. Not every person without kids is interested in becoming a real estate mogul. What's made housing unaffordable today wasn't that families used to be able to support themselves on a single income, it's corporations and foreign buyers who purchase homes without any intention to occupy them. They'd rather hold onto them as an investment leaving them empty or rent them out at higher and higher rates. Stopping this practice, and ensuring that anyone buying a residential property is a resident of the city/state/nation, and that the buyer must occupy the property at least some of the time would do a lot more good for the housing problem in the US than suppressing wages so that no parent can afford to stay home to raise their own children.