I mean if you live in one of the biggest city of your country, want a kid and a big flat next to metro station yeah you're going to have a hard time. But that's true for any era and any city. You can't cut a pie in 8 slices and share it with 10 000 people.
Why not scale down, move a bit out of the city, have some nature for your kid, get a small EV, and save money ?
You might also want to vote for people who don't allow their own city to be bought by foreign investors. The same thing is happening in paris and london, real estate isn't for people to live in anymore, it's pure financial assets for the rich. https://realestate.boston.com/buying/2019/07/29/foreigner-bu...
In particular my issue is that prices have quite literally doubled since 2012 or so. That hasn't been true for any era of any city, as you claim. The inflation of real estate is enormous, 1920s units with 2 bedrooms that have been trading around for 200-400k from the 90s until the recession have now ballooned up to 800+k.
Similarly, inner suburbs with transit connection are one by one ballooning out of control on prices as well. Somerville is now land of million dollar condos, Watertown and Waltham have gone wild, and so on. The starter
> Why not scale down, move a bit out of the city, have some nature for your kid, get a small EV, and save money ?
There's no way I'm ever taking a driving commute to downtown Boston, which is simultaneously expensive and stressful, but I am considering (when the time comes) moving to a town where I can take a train ride back in.
> You might also want to vote for people who don't allow their own city to be bought by foreign investors. The same thing is happening in paris and london, real estate isn't for people to live in anymore, it's pure financial assets for the rich.
Another notable one is zoning laws, in particular legalizing missing middle housing for the huge swathes of homes zoned for single family only (outside Boston proper anyways). I've written to my state reps about it.
Oh boy, I spend zero on entertainment or other unnecessary stuff so my spending dropped perhaps 5%/mo. Great. I'm only miserable and hate life is all, but great.
> Even $100 in coffee budget a month ain't the problem
$100 a month invested over 30 or 40 years is quite the money for most people.
> I'm only miserable and hate life is all, but great.
Listening to you two we're miserable anyway, at least now you have some money. But seriously, how did people live before the 80s without all these form of entertainment and useless gadgets ?
They spent $100/mo (inflation adjusted) on bowling lane fees, drinks at the bowling alley, team shirts, bowling shoes, et c, instead of Internet service plus a streaming service or three. Or something similar. Our modern distractions aren't exactly crazy-expensive. They're insanely cheap, really. We can have a big-ass flatscreen—at least one—for the cost of one little color TV they'd have in a 1970s house, and they would have one, with rare exceptions.
> As for child care, health care, retirement and school I'm genuinely sorry for you but you're paying the price of america's vision of capitalism.
Heh, no kidding. It's a pretty crappy deal.