> If the house is paid off, you have that equity. Maybe it's $500k instead of $1million, whatever, it's still worth money.

"Whatever"? With 20 years left to live, $500k difference is huge. Try to get informed about prices for such places. And how come you are the one to decide whether they are worth it or deserve it? This is a ridiculous discussion.

> To your second question... the difference is a wage is based on adding economic activity while the land value increase is almost exclusively rent-seeking.

The economic value of their lot obviously increased manyfold since they purchased it. Anybody could have bought it. If society (through laws) should have a say in the price of selling a plot of land then I'd like to see your reaction to society having a say about sw eng compensation. Oh right that's totally different! Because one of them impacts you directly while the other one doesn't and is easy to armchair philosophize about.

> Anybody could have bought it.

People that were not alive could not have bought it.

I own a home. I still see the state of housing as a problem. Because I’m not a greedy selfish asshole.

I believe that most people see the state of housing as a problem, home owner or not.

Still no reason to deny folks whose property value skyrocketed those funds when they sell. Unless you also want to deny Nvidia or Tesla stock owners their money when they sell.

Housing is a market and the value of items in a market can go up or down.

For some reason going down isn’t allowed in housing.

If Nvidia or Tesla tanked tomorrow to $10/share are those who own shares being “denied” money when they sell? Obviously not.

Stocks aren't a necessity to live. Housing is (and while ownership of housing is not, the land costs impact rental rates as well).

And as mentioned in the sibling, few people think of stock gains as an inherent right. Stocks go up and down and we all accept that.

That could be 5-10 years of retirement funds for the average American… “whatever” is extremely out of touch.