So as stupid as the position generally was, what he was saying is sea level rise and major climate shifts are not immediate, so as it starts getting bad, a person sells their home (for less that they bought it for) and the next person has it worse (but still “habitable”) and sells it for less than they bought it for, and by the time it gets to the last seller who can’t sell it to anyone, it’s not worth much anyway.
Basically, if you have a nice home and make decent money, the house can keep getting passed to poorer and poorer people until only the poorest homeowner gets completely screwed, and that’s okay because that’s how the market goes.
His position wasn’t stupid, it was evil.
Edit: though to add, if insurance companies won’t offer insurance, his point is irrelevant, because you can’t finance a house without insurance, and that makes that seller the end owner.
While I agree with you, I think you’re giving him too much credit. Ben doesn’t seem like someone who puts much thought into what drivels from his mouth. He just wants to “win” the “debate”
While I know it wasn’t the point he was trying to make, but it’s a related point: a house really shouldn’t be a commodity to be profited from. It should be an investment in your own future housing, not a way to make money. Anything else you buy, you expect to sell for less than you paid, but somehow you should always profit from selling your house? That’s why we’re in the current situation where young people can’t afford a house. Because unless you build it yourself, you’re paying for someone else to profit off their investment that they paid someone else to profit off before them, and we’re expected to keep that train going with housing prices constantly going up.
So as stupid as the position generally was, what he was saying is sea level rise and major climate shifts are not immediate, so as it starts getting bad, a person sells their home (for less that they bought it for) and the next person has it worse (but still “habitable”) and sells it for less than they bought it for, and by the time it gets to the last seller who can’t sell it to anyone, it’s not worth much anyway.
Basically, if you have a nice home and make decent money, the house can keep getting passed to poorer and poorer people until only the poorest homeowner gets completely screwed, and that’s okay because that’s how the market goes.
His position wasn’t stupid, it was evil.
Edit: though to add, if insurance companies won’t offer insurance, his point is irrelevant, because you can’t finance a house without insurance, and that makes that seller the end owner.
While I agree with you, I think you’re giving him too much credit. Ben doesn’t seem like someone who puts much thought into what drivels from his mouth. He just wants to “win” the “debate”
While I know it wasn’t the point he was trying to make, but it’s a related point: a house really shouldn’t be a commodity to be profited from. It should be an investment in your own future housing, not a way to make money. Anything else you buy, you expect to sell for less than you paid, but somehow you should always profit from selling your house? That’s why we’re in the current situation where young people can’t afford a house. Because unless you build it yourself, you’re paying for someone else to profit off their investment that they paid someone else to profit off before them, and we’re expected to keep that train going with housing prices constantly going up.