“Revising the game” is exactly what the GP commentator was warning about. Push the inequality far enough and the social contract will likely get changed. So you asked what can you do? I’m not saying don’t move to the area you want, but make conscious choices that help reduce the inequalities that may drive those inequalities. Maybe don’t be riled up about high density housing bringing down your property values. Maybe support local businesses even though it costs more. Maybe vote for higher taxes that provide better schools even if you don’t have kids. Love how much father your income goes in that new town? Maybe donate just a portion of it to help provide a safety net for “locals” who may otherwise be negatively impacted by the “out-of-towners”.
And maybe you do all those types of things already. But the tone of your comment comes across as, “Welp, what choice do I have but to myopically try to get the most out of this hustle??”
I’m not sure how you got that tone from my comment. Things like better funding for schools and not treating property like an investment vehicle are exactly the type of game changing tactics we need to consider collectively enforcing as local communities, hence my suggestion to revise the game not hate the players. The comment I responded too is suggesting that people [moving] are the problem and while there may be some implicit moral responsibility expected of those who relocate when their income would be higher than average in their new location, the problem, to me, seems systemic.
Sorry if I misinterpreted, maybe it’s just the loaded phrase used as a quip that threw me off.
I agree, the way forward is to revise the structure and incentives. However, I don’t want to completely absolve individuals of moral responsibility just because they’re playing within the rules of “the game”
And maybe you do all those types of things already. But the tone of your comment comes across as, “Welp, what choice do I have but to myopically try to get the most out of this hustle??”