That really isn't a problem. So long as you can afford something where your basic needs are met: four walls, clean, safe, sturdy, etc, nobody's entitled to waterfront views. The idea is you create value through your work and utilize the proceeds to upgrade your residence, if that's what you value.
I agree that not everyone's entitled to waterfront views, but I think that in a functioning society everyone would be able to own a decent house (e.g. one that gets sunlight), within a reasonable commute of their work, in desirable part of the country (e.g. in a cosmopolitan city).
The difficulty that I see is that housing prices in America are so high that it's unrealistic for moth people to create enough value to purchase a residence at even that basic level of quality.
I think, unfortunately, the definition of decent in this case is viewed as luxury. Most specifically the concept that everyone should be able to own a house within a reasonable commute of work in a desirable location. This cannot happen while also respecting the idea of properties as investments, the wealthy wanting to be able to purchase disproportionately large places in multiple desirable locations, and the idea that so many people may desire to live in a city that the city cannot possibly take them all.
>This cannot happen while also respecting the idea of properties as investments, the wealthy wanting to be able to purchase disproportionately large places in multiple desirable locations
I'm not convinced that these are values worth respecting.
> I think, unfortunately, the definition of decent in this case is viewed as luxury. Most specifically the concept that everyone should be able to own a house within a reasonable commute of work in a desirable location.
A house or a place to live? There's not enough physical land adjacent to places of business for each person who wants one to own a single-family home. They're an awfully inefficient use of space -- see the entire western half of San Francisco.
> This cannot happen while also respecting the idea of properties as investments...
Property can't be affordable and a good investment. Those two are mutually exclusive. An investment goes up relative to inflation. Affordability by definition goes down relative to inflation. You can't have something that goes up as it goes down.
> ...the wealthy wanting to be able to purchase disproportionately large places in multiple desirable locations...
You can, if you do something along the lines of what Singapore does with the HDB. Some 90% of Singaporeans live in government homes built by the HDB, and the remaining 10% is available to the wealthy to play.
> ...and the idea that so many people may desire to live in a city that the city cannot possibly take them all.
They city can absolutely take them all if you allow building up. There's no excuse for down-town San Francisco north of market limiting buildings to 6 stories when downtown Hong Kong has 118 story buildings.
> own a decent house (e.g. one that gets sunlight)
I'm not sure this is that important a criterion for most people. Pre-lockdown, I'd leave the house before the sun came up, and got home barely in time to catch the sunset. If I wanted sunlight, I could walk a block in either direction.
I actually have a preference for living in shadier (as in shade, not crime) parts of town, especially neighborhoods with tree-lined streets/boulevards.
> I agree that not everyone's entitled to waterfront views, but I think that in a functioning society everyone would be able to own a decent house (e.g. one that gets sunlight), within a reasonable commute of their work, in desirable part of the country (e.g. in a cosmopolitan city).
Out of curiosity, what is your reasoning behind this belief?
I see the role of society to be to provide for its member's needs[1]. While I don't think "needs" means that everyone gets a Ferrari and a Yacht, I do think it goes beyond just what one requires to be alive. In particular, due to America's size and diversity, having flexibility in where one lives is an important part of being able to choose one's lifestyle.[2]
[1] At least until we arrive at some sort of Star Trek level of technology, no society is going to do this perfectly, so when I say "functioning society" I mean one that more or less provides for the vast majority of its citizens and provides some sort of safety net/second chance for people who do fall through the cracks.
[2] This is much more "wishy washy" and hard to quantify, but I'd say that in a functioning society everyone would be able to, in a general sense, live the sort of life that they want while providing for themselves and their family. I mean this in broad strokes such as wanting to live in a cosmopolitan city/near the beach/near mountains or wanting to be able to seriously practice art/music/sports (although not necessarily as one's day job).
I don't know if it would be possible to provide to everyone in society who wants it, but a path towards at least making it more available might look like:
Invest in public transportation (and potentially restrict private transportation in city centers) so that we can expand how far out someone can live and still have a reasonable commute.
Where appropriate, allow people to work from home so that commute is less of an issue.
Build more and in some cases higher density affordable housing so that more people are able to live in desirable areas.
Invest in infrastructure (both practical infrastructure such as high speed internet and "aesthetic" infrastructure such as parks and public works of art) in order to make more places desirable.
I definitely agree, I just chose cosmopolitan cities because they are both one of the most commonly preferred places to live right now and one of the most expensive.
