This is a pretty silly response. Are people entitled to live wherever they want? No. But the situation is very obviously not that black and white. We allow many things in society that people aren't entitled to, largely because we believe it will build a better society.

Am I entitled to own my investment properties? No.

Am I entitled to block neighbouring housing from being built? No.

But society allows both of these things because they ostensibly should result in a better society. Of course, they may not, and if they don't result in a better society, we should probably turn the dial back on these factors, but not get rid of them altogether.

So should anyone be entitled to live anywhere? No. But should a middle-class person be able to build a life in places where there are opportunities for job growth (and like it or not, right now, that's the big cities)? Probably, if we think that will result in a better society. So we may need to turns some policy dials to ensure this will happen.

Why are you not entitled to own your investment properties?

> But should a middle-class person be able to build a life in places where there are opportunities for job growth (and like it or not, right now, that's the big cities)?

No. You are not entitled to access to specific jobs or a specific area.

What kind of worldview is this? We should sacrifice social and economic mobility for people's Zucchini gardens?

The world exists beyond San Francisco, you are not entitled to one specific city.

There's a giant gap between "you're entitled to live wherever you want" and "too bad, go live in the middle of nowhere."

My read is that the person you're responding to is in the middle of that gap; and your response frames them as being on one extreme edge and then says an acceptable answer is to go to the other extreme edge.

Why is it not possible? The only "objective fact" is that people in certain areas in this country have lobbied hard to make sure that no one else should be able to move in anywhere around them. These rules are all reversible.

It’s not possible because there is limited space. Someone loses, always. There is no version of reality where everyone who wants to live in San Francisco gets to.

You can disagree with how we divvy up SF but claiming you should get to live there is in direct contradiction with the idea that everyone should get to live there.

Someone, somehow, will get bumped. You’re just advocating for a system that would put you there at the expense of someone else.

You are acting like owning a home entitles you to dictate how other people get to live. It does not. Owning a home shouldn't allow you to dictate that someone cannot build a home near you. Unfortunately it does in some places, but this is fixable.

Thank you so much for this beautiful insight. I just purchased a 100 sqft plot of land in the Alaskan wilderness where I will hire 20 employees and start a manufacturing business... oh wait, that's ridiculous.

Your argument contributes nothing because it fails to address the real negative consequences of unaffordable housing. After a point (which we most certainly have crossed), it affects society in strongly negative ways.

I don't know what kind of society you want to live in, but I don't want any part of that.

What the heck is so wrong with the Midwest in your mind? Do you seriously think living in Ohio, a couple of hours from the Great Lakes, is equivalent to living on some remote parcel of land in rural Alaska?

You’re missing the forest for the trees.

No, he isn't. Being able to live in any one particular city is not an inherent right of humanity.

It's perfectly reasonable to be priced out of some areas of the world, there is nothing at all wrong with that as a general concept.

You’re also missing the forest for the trees because you’re not seeing the real issue. What you’re describing is really just the core concept of any market.

The issue is that we’re seriously restricting growth and innovation in favor of using housing as a financial investment. Yes, it’s necessary to have some degree of inequality and nobody is entitled to to live in any exact spot, but it’s gotten out of hand at this point, it’s hurting our societies, and it’s unsustainable.

Clearly it is ethically problematic for the people of San Francisco to squirt out babies and then 18 years later tell them to go fuck off, go live in Gary, Indiana.

Don't give anyone any ideas or they might discover that they can buy a house like this [1] that is walking distance to the commuter train, walking distance to the beach, and walking distance to the trails in a National Park [2] [3] [4]

[1] https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/8725-Maple-Ave-Gary-IN-46...

[2] https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6199213,-87.2571163,16z

[3] https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6199718,-87.2697873,16z

[4] https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6218829,-87.2348586,16z

No one is forcing you to live in the city you do now. I am probably in a similar income range yet live a <3 miles from a major city that is known for high housing market.

People have such high expectations of housing, they are pricing themselves out. I do live in a 60+ year old, 1400 sf house, but that doesn't bother me.

I empathize for you, I do, but nothing you've said here means you deserve to live in San Francisco and a) not somewhere else or b) more than anyone else.

You do not deserve to live in San Francisco. Sorry.

What's probably a bit more toxic about your attitude is the implied belief that you deserve "better" than everywhere else in the US, that San Francisco is "yours* and not anyone else's.

And not for nothing, but I do have children (two) and am entirely capable of empathizing with others.