The fact that I disagree with you doesn’t make my argument emotional.
I did not suggest forcing anyone to move. I suggest that if you cannot afford a home, you should go somewhere you can, rather than stealing homes from people who have bought them already through confiscatory taxation.
There is no reason why people need to be displaced from their homes if jobs are created elsewhere.
If people in full time employment are unable to afford housing, they are being paid too little, and should not have accepted the job, thus forcing employers to offer more.
You have stated that you think people should be driven out of their homes even if work can be moved elsewhere. (“The solution is both”).
That seems pretty reprehensible, and I’m curious why you think it?
I did not suggest forcing anyone to move. I suggest that if you cannot afford a home, you should go somewhere you can, rather than stealing homes from people who have bought them already through confiscatory taxation.
There is no reason why people need to be displaced from their homes if jobs are created elsewhere.
If people in full time employment are unable to afford housing, they are being paid too little, and should not have accepted the job, thus forcing employers to offer more.
You have stated that you think people should be driven out of their homes even if work can be moved elsewhere. (“The solution is both”).
That seems pretty reprehensible, and I’m curious why you think it?