Totally. Just because it's the game that capital wants us to play doesn't mean that there's any guarantee that you win. It's just also that it's the only way to maybe win. This supports parent's argument that wealth distribution is arbitrary. One person wins and another loses, playing the same game the same way, just because they entered the market at different times. The uncomfortable contradiction that we're supposed to generally agree with is that the first person is "smart and hardworking", and the second person "is financially irresponsible, obviously living outside their means".

> So does the price of things that work produces.

Not sure if this a comment re: UBI, antiwork, or housing costs, but housing in particular is always a special kind of crazy because we've insisted on looking at it as a financial vehicle instead of you know, a place to live and work from. Prefab things that could cut costs are illegal most places. In Florida they build labor-intensive houses out of match-sticks even though the next hurricane is always coming, because that's what's easy to permit, that's what people historically wanted to insure, and it keeps construction rackets and developers in business. Further from the coasts, even in the more sparsely populated mountain/desert states, you can go to the edge of any larger town and look out at the "supply" of hundreds of miles of empty, and still get forced into paying half a million for a crappy place on half an acre. Supply and demand is certainly some kind of a factor, but like parents point about wealth-from-work vs wealth-from-asset-appreciation, it's a small factor and getting smaller. The market's already intensely manipulated.. it's just done in a way that makes problems worse instead of better.