Comment by dragontamer | Hacker News Reader

Comment by dragontamer | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

The wealthy throughout history have often made sacrifices when wealth was obviously unfair. Or when wealth was needed to move society forward.

What a wealthy person wants isn't necessarily greed, and we need to stop thinking like that. Even in Roman times, wealthy got together to fund various projects for the greater good.

What the wealthy want most of all, is if you take their wealth, that it truly does go towards a greater good. And "building more houses" takes wealth through free-market capitalist systems in any case (ie: its not a direct wealth taking we're talking about, but a steady change as zoning laws allow more houses to be built).

------------

Most of these "wealthy retirees" are looking aghast at their children's opportunities. My brother-in-law's parents may own 3 houses, but they were complaining to me about their daughter's inability to find a house in this current market.

They care far, far more about their daughter finding a good house and starting her family, than the value of their 3 houses. And I bet many, many, many other families are in the same situation. (Rich/Wealthy retirees scared for their children / grandchildren).

If they care more about their daughter finding a house, and they have 3, then why don't they give her one?

Houses that are good for wealthy retired people are not so good for young couples raising children.

In particular, the school systems that are around such homes. Location, Location, Location.

Secondly: those houses have tenants. They're not sitting empty.

Thirdly, for the young couple. Being tied to your parents financially basically makes them a slave-owner of you. When the parents drop by or use the yard to store project-cars, or refuse to fix issues with the house... the young couple is not in a position to fix those issues themselves without pissing off the parents. (Its not their house after all). So getting their own house leads to a better relationship between child and parent anyway, and should be preferred.

It doesn’t sound like they’re particularly willing to make sacrifices then.

> Thirdly . . .

I’m sorry, but you don’t seem to understand the concept of giving. If I give something to my family, it is theirs. They can use it, lend it, sell it, destroy it.

I agree with parent comment, if they have 3 houses, buy one for their daughter. As in put her name on the deed. Either they care about her and love her and their grandchildren or they are selfish and would rather have 3 rentals then what’s best for their kids.

Heh, fair enough.

I'm very tangentially related to them. (Sister's husband's parent + sister's husband's sister). So I'm not really going to meddle with their life choices.

----------

But I'm trying to say that policies that help their daughter (even if it costs them a bit of wealth by subtracting it from their 3x houses due to looser construction laws causing more houses to be built and therefore lowering the prices of houses in this area) is something they likely will support.

The houses have tenants, so they can't use them for their children? It sounds like they prioritize the income stream over their child finding a home. Yeah, it isn't fun for the people who need to relocate but that isn't some impossible hurdle.

Did you see point#1? The homes aren't in locations ideal for raising children in any case.

You need a good school district if you want your child to growup smart. Retired folk having 3x homes in lower-educated areas is fine for retired folk. But that doesn't mean that those homes are immediately useful to a new family.

Building new homes (and cheaper homes) in the better school districts makes more sense overall. Some neighborhoods naturally become "retirement communities" but kind of a ghetto for education (ie: young couples try to escape those areas due to poor schooling).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com