I'm not talking about me.
If your argument for the current market is "find a different place" you will lose. Not today, but give it a few years, when the Gen-Z and younger Millennials locked out of the market start voting in numbers, because they feel left out, things will change in ways you may not like.
The whole, go somewhere where property is affordable line doesn't work in a world where work is concentrated in the cities. Back when you could cut trees, mine, or fish for a reasonable wage that argument had some merit. These days it's as tone deaf as "learn to code"...
I was wrong to personalize the discussion.
You're not wrong about the effects of the market on the youngsters.
Years ago there was a TV series called Time Team. A bunch of itinerant archaeologists who did three day digs all over Britain. They fascinated me. One site they investigated was an early Arkwright factory. It was a steam driven mill by design but the early Newcomen style engine wasn't as efficient as they hoped so they ended up with a closed circuit water driven mill with the steam pump being used to circulate the water. This was the beginning of the industrial revolution circa 1770 or thereabouts IIRC.
There was a secondary story line. About slums and Karl Marx's commentaries.
The original mill was designed with accommodation for the factory staff. The accommodations were top notch. Separate houses for each worker, with a long enough yard to be able to keep a pig, a few chickens and maintain a garden. The idea was that the place had to be able to attract the best labour from the farms and bring them into the new factories. The early capitalists were utopians.
Fast forward a lifetime, 70 years, to Karl Marx's day and Karl was observing slums.
The Agricultural Revolution meant that there were fewer jobs on farms so there was a surplus of labour for the mills. The mill owners no longer had to compete for labour. Labour was competing for jobs. All of those neat little one family houses were subdivided. The archaeology showed that single family homes became two family homes with a family per home. Then the cellars were rented out. Then the cellars were divided to create two private homes - below grade, with no windows. Where there had been one well off factory worker when the mill opened, 70 years later there were now 8 to 10 mill worker's families living is squalor. The utopians were no more. They were now competing with other mill owners who could undercut them because they didn't have to compete for labour and they were saturating the market place, driving down the price of woolens and everything else that could be manufactured.
Chicken and egg time. Did capitalists create slums or did the workers do it to themselves?
....
We are living in cities that are just over 70 years old, counting from the post-WW2 boom. The houses that were built since then had planned lives of about 25 years. That stock of houses, and the lifestyle for which it was designed, as well as the occupants, is fading into the past.
Europe is full of high density slums converted into modern high density cities. Much of Canada was settled by people that were actively escaping those high density communities, modernized or not. They knew what it was like to live with sewage running down the streets due to inadequate infrastructure, too little water, too few doctors, too few jobs and being besieged by outbreaks of disease. They aspired to a job and a home of their own that they could keep clean and raise healthy kids.
It seems a pity to me that it only takes a lifetime to start replicating the cycle that Karl Marx saw.
...
People do best when they have their own little patch that they can control to their own satisfaction with their own capital. The Tragedy of the Commons is still a real thing.