Agreed. One could generously give the OP the benefit of the doubt that the intent of the post is a complaint about the system, but it's fundamentally flawed as it's still an attack on the "victim" of said system.

Who are they, to tell people what to eat or what size house to live in? As long as people have the choice of food they want or home they want, that's all that matters. Work needs to be done to make those choices equitable, but even in an equitable system there would still be tradeoffs. I just bought a house a few years ago, it's in town, modest size (1800sq ft), and I have a 15 minute commute. I love it. My friends bought a house last year - huge, 3500 sq ft. Brand new, bit mcmansion-y, but it's a nice house, and they love it. We paid about the same price, because their house is in the middle of nowhere. If we bought a house near them, I'd have a 1+ hour commute one way each day, and I'd hate it. I like my hobbies, but I don't need that much space, lol.

And if someone is happy buying a tiny house, good for them. If someone doesn't need the space - doesn't have kids, has undemanding hobbies, isn't throwing a lot of parties, why would they need a bigger house? It's just more to maintain. This post is basically saying anyone who doesn't consume - buying bigger houses and a meat and eggs breakfast - is a victim, which is just stupid. And it'd be great if tiny homes weren't one of the easiest ways out of the current rental nightmare, but some people would still choose tiny homes even if every house cost the same and renting didn't exist.

Hooray for nuance and reason!