So instead, homeowners vote for policies that make sure that they somehow get an asset that is guaranteed to go up. That's an unearned benefit, it's one that comes at our expense, and it's an expense that they sure as hell didn't have to deal with when they were getting established in the world.

No. Those people built the communities you find so desirable to live in, sometimes from scratch, sometimes by regenerating a dilapidated area. The value you crave would not even exist if not for them. And now that the hard work is done, you expect to waltz in and have it for the taking?

Millennials think they are the first generation ever to live through hard times. While raking in fortunes their parents and grandparents could only dream of, working for tech unicorns.

Everyone else wants to think of Millennials as the first generation that is uniquely self-absorbed or whiney.

I thought the value was due to all of the high paid tech workers coming in with high salaries and driving up housing prices?

Oakland? San Francisco? Santa Monica? Los Angeles? Well before Boomers.

The small cities that are trying to bring in businesses without building any housing? Palo Alto? Menlo Park? Berkeley?

All of these places were within 25% of their current size by 1960. Boomers didn't build any of these communities from scratch; they may have grown up in them, but they're not special unique forebears that made everything around us.

Good luck with your desirable community as it closes itself to everyone, grows old and turns into an old-age home /s.

Just stop this characterization of all Millenials, will you? Young people are the future and they are contributing into the welfare programs that go into supporting old farts. Old farts who neglected the infrastructure, squandered billions in foreign wars and much more in toxic financial instruments and just elected the most unqualified idiot as the most powerful person in the world.

See how that kind of generalization works?

The 0.1% sure know how to get the 99% to viciously attack one other over the scraps that fall from their table.

Most assets have been going up in value. It's because of wealth inequality reaching staggering levels. It isn't because of homeowner voting patterns and it isn't the fault of homeowners. They just didn't do as badly out of this problem as non-homeowners.

This is true. But using housing for this is the worst possible way to achieve this.

If Americans want guaranteed retirement security, the government should build them a guaranteed retirement security.

Breaking all housing everywhere, all the time always, is not a sustainable or feasible way to fund retirements.

In the UK its the exact opposite - the government actively plundered the private pension funds. People want something tangible.

If you don't want me to live next door, buy the land. As it stands now you can forbid me from living on land you don't own.

that would properly align incentives. now it's just sitting on land and watching the dollars flow in - the definition of unearned wealth.

Look at the Japanese housing market for an extreme example of what can happen. After an insane housing run-up it's been a flat or depreciating asset for decades.

There are no safe single classes of asset. If you put all your money in a house you're not diversifying.

But that is contrary to the Millenial narrative that every previous generation had it easy! And that they are uniquely in the entire history of the world hard-done-by.

People are upset that they can’t move into an already-gentrified neighbourhood at pre-gentrification prices