3 ms·
> But like I said, it doesn't cover inequality. Again, like I wrote, you need to prove that inequality is inherently bad. Or that home ownership is inherently
by dismalaf 1mo ago
> But like I said, it doesn't cover inequality.
Again, like I wrote, you need to prove that inequality is inherently bad.
Or that home ownership is inherently good. You ever live in a 3rd world country? I saw families who "owned" homes that were 4 walls, 300 sq ft with a tin roof that covered the top, but had no electricity, plumbing and wasn't even sealed from small animals getting in. Is that wealth?
- PorciiVorbesc 29d ago>Or that home ownership is inherently good Home ownership is always better than no home ownership, 3rd world country or first world country. Owning an asset is better than owning nothing. >You ever live in a 3rd world country? What does that have to do with home ownership in first world countries? That's some bad faith moving the goalposts whataboutism. >Is that wealth? Where they live, by those standards, yes, it's wealth, and it's better than having zero wealth and needing to pay rent.