Also, ffs, it's called resource crunch and wealth centralization, and I'm not entirely convinced we aren't staring down the smoldering barrel of some serious shit Stateside over the next decade.
Have 12 children in homelessness and prove to us that it is a better way to live life.
If you want it for others but not for yourself, you are just being hypocritical.
> this is the point where I point out homelessness was the normal standard of living for most of humanities evolutionary history.
Oh wait, that was you.
If you think it is acceptable to be homeless with plenty of children because evolution, you should do it yourself. Be the change you want to see.
Since I have little interest in keeping up this cycle with someone that is incidentally (or worse, purposefully) too dense to understand basic contradictions, I'll leave you to have the last word.
Have a wonderful weekend.
1) I never said that it was acceptable to be homeless with lots of children. (1a) You've tried and failed to find a quote where I did, so I know you've read what I wrote and can't source that belief to anything I actually said; even stripped of context.
2) Misreading a comment is something that happens, so y'know, ok no worries maybe I wrote an unclear one. But I've explicitly told you I don't believe that. And it is a crazy belief that nobody holds so I don't know why it would be a hard thing to accept after a few clarifying words.
3) Third time a charm. In the article we've got a 100-word abstract that lays the position out nice and clearly. The major factor here is not house prices, it is changing - shifting if you will - priorities. We've had situations where house prices were absurdly high in the past - for most of our evolutionary history a house has been an unattainable luxury and fertility was off the charts by modern standards. High house prices are obviously not a root cause.
Being unable to afford a home isn't the major factor here, that has pretty much always been a factor. It is standards, priorities and options changing.