>>82274914
It's not wanting a perfect situation, it's just not wanting the absolute opposite of a good situation. Telling young people 'just go live in some random northern town you don't like, have never been to, don't know anyone in, has shit transport links and has no good jobs just so you can live in a house you don't like for 6 years for it to appreciate and so you can 'move up the ladder' (which is also appreciating at the same rate anyway) just isn't an appealing offer. Le contrat sociale.

>If you can't cope with living suboptimally for a few years to then get a much better outcome long-term then you're just gimping yourself.
Part of the problem is that EVERYONE is living suboptimally and it's more or less the permanent state of being for people, especially young people now. Even if you live in London, you're looking at spending a solid 40-50% of your income renting a tiny box with four flatmates well into your late 30s. Not to mention that the quality of the city is declining precipitously.
There is no 'suffer through it for a few years and you'll benefit in the end' deal going on here, it's just that every option is some variation of bad. It didn't used to be like this.