Well, they had the choice of not buying a home that was four to five times the median while having a household income that was also four times the median.
For instance, right here in Atlanta, someone can buy a decent size home with an income of $70K. Your average journeyman CRUD SASS developer with 3-5 years of experience can make $120K. More than enough to buy house, support a family, save for college, etc.
Most of the rest of the country has decided not to live in the Bay Area....
They are though. They're not signs of relative wealth.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wealth
Also, What? Why is that person "struggling"? That's 50K annually in principle and an extra 2500 in interest (at 5%) assuming you had a 0% down payment. Assuming you're paying half your income to taxes, you still have 72,500 left annually after making those home payments for whatever else you need to live off of. I get that this is fast and dirty back of a napkin math, but when you're mortgage is only 6X your annual income, you're probably doing fine. If you're struggling to exist with 72,500, we have very different definitions of "struggling".
My original point is this: "Wealth" is generally relative, and I accept that, but I can't believe that the holdings and wages are so out of proportion with the rest of the country that someone can attempt to make the claim that pulling in a quarter of a million dollars annually and living in a 1.5 million dollar home doesn't make you wealthy.
Signed: someone from the NYC tri-state where we have had "old money" families forever but still know what rich people look like.
(Final point: yes, you can eat home equity because you can convert it into liquidity most of the time.)
Why should I subsidize their choice when I chose to live in an area where the cost of living vs salary is much more amenable to my choices and financial goals for me and my family?