If they do not own where they live (and chose to rent) then they don't OWN their home and in turn have no right to live there. Rather, it makes much more sense

If they do not own where they live (and chose to rent) then they don't OWN their home and in turn have no right to live there. Rather, it makes much more sense that they should live somewhere within their means. If they are angry about that, it seems to me that they are just throwing a fit. Ah, it's clear that you're being a little small-minded and looking at things at a micro-level, at the scale of the person. In startup terms, be more disruptive, think 30,000ft, not 6'. An argument like the one you mentioned above is one of complacency and inaction that originates around a tautology. "If they can't afford it, they shouldn't be there." = "If they don't like the status quo, they shouldn't protest the status quo." Other similar arguments could be formulated; "If you don't like the NSA, move to a different country", "If you don't have high speed internet because you can't pay $200/mo for fiber, you should cope with slow internet." Note that the arguments I give are not actually constructive criticism or logical arguments, but tautological loops that leave people in positions of complacency. I will offer that the better position to take is: "We should all have inexpensive high-speed internet. How can we get there?" "The USA should not spy on its citizens. What can we do to change that?" And correspondingly: "We should have a stable and healthy housing situation for all, what can we do to change this?" Now, it sounds like you most certainly don't agree with that last question, since you mention: It's in the cities interest to keep the rent/cost per home as high as possible and in turn keep the tech people around. I wonder if you feel the same way about the USA: "It's in the US's interest to keep the rent/cost per home as high as possible and in turn keep the high-income individuals around"?