Part of the problem is government regulation. In some places, it's almost impossible to build new houses due to regulations. Some portion of the population wants to see house prices continue to increase and they will vote for politicians who will implement policies which will support that agenda. Of course this happens at the expense of another, also large portion of the population who do not own a house and have to…
It's odd to me that the wrong take has risen to the top of the comments, but not surprising. HN isn't what it used to be, demonstrated by how long threads dominate the front page while the actual answers fall below the fold. Regulation isn't the problem, or even part of the problem. Wealth inequality is. Which is counterbalanced by progressive taxation. But none of you want the rich to pay taxes, so here we are. Quit…
> Regulation isn't the problem, or even part of the problem. Wealth inequality is. Which is counterbalanced by progressive taxation.
> But none of you want the rich to pay taxes, so here we are
Where did the above poster say that wealth inequality wasn't part of the problem. Restrictive regulation is likely a cause of the consolidation of wealth (scarce, essential assets tend to go up in value, and when the supply is restricted and demand unbounded, even more so). If access to drinkable water was privatized and regulatory bottlenecks restricted new entrants from producing and distributing it, you can imagine how that would lead to more dramatic wealth inequality also (and poor people dying of dehydration).
GP said:
> > I think we have a situation where part of the population is literally voting to appropriate wealth from another part of the population.
Housing is one of the tools (and by no means the only one) that the plutocrats are using to widen the wealth gap.
> But none of you want the rich to pay taxes, so here we are
I don't know why you're assuming this, but I agree with GP and, of course, also want the rich to pay more taxes. Based on everything they've said, I can't imagine they feel differently.
> Maybe they can just take this year off instead, by taking this month's income and camping indefinitely, pulling the plug on the rat race and just living. Eventually forming small communal city states that provide for their citizens while the business world consumes itself since it doesn't produce anything like workers do.
> > At the same time, those people who do not own a house are wising up to the scheme and so they increasingly refuse to work or provide value to society. Instead, they resort to their own financial schemes, illegal activity, freeloading government benefits; they've checked out from the system.
Sounds almost like the two of you are saying the same thing here, though GP is using words which lean more negative in connotation