If you have more than you need while others are suffering it’s greed. You can’t change the definition of greed just because it makes you uncomfortable.

What if we made it a law that no one could own a second home before everyone owned a first home?

Not to nitpick, but the common definition of greed is different:

> Greed is an insatiable desire for material gain (be it food, money, land, or animate/inanimate possessions) or social value, such as status, or power.

Keyword: Insatiable. Lots of the people in the Bay Area are simply looking for a secure future for their children. Why is this unreasonable?

Edit: Thanks Podgajski, I like your definition below better.

I found a less extreme definition:

intense and selfish desire for something, especially wealth, power, or food.

Just about every single Westerner has more than they need in some way, and there’s plenty of folks suffering in the world. Your definition uselessly labels everyone greedy and also does nothing to help those that are suffering.

It’s not the job of individuals to fix our global economic system by changing their individual (legal) behavior. This is a regulatory problem.

I’m not useless at labeling people, greedy, I’m usefully, labeling, greedy, and I agree, we are exploiting most of the world because of our greed. We should all come to face that, and not only our live will be better, but the whole world lives will be better. And it would probably stop climate change as well. This is a regular problem that we can change with first our behavior as living by an example. This is why I don’t feel so bad, being homeless and living with less.

You literally can’t change this solely by changing your own first order behavior. Only by higher order approaches can you achieve change. (Saying stuff on the internet is not one of those approaches. Being homeless isn’t either).