> if somebody asks an overinflated way-over productivity wage for cleaning toilets because of a supply shortage, this is considered being unethical and "unwilling to do the dirty work, while receiving benefits", but asking a way way overinflated price for housing because of a supply shortage is considered good and healthy for the market and drives investment without shaming the investors for receiving undue housing benefits?

The clear difference is who bears the cost of demanding an artificially high price. If you're asking an overinflated wage as a ploy to stay on unemployment, or to keep a low-effort make-work job, who bears the cost of that decision? Not the worker! By shunning gainful employment, he chooses to remain on the dole, for his own benefit and to the detriment of his neighbors--who are paying his bills. He also short-changes society, which could benefit from his employment through taxes paid, and by virtue of his doing work that's actually in demand. So it's unethical for this person to take money out of his neighbors' pockets (many of whom do dirty work) because he's too good to do his fair share.

The person who chooses to try to sell their house for a high price doesn't gain anything by setting too-high a price--quite the opposite! Every month they don't sell the property, they're paying the mortgage and insurance. So it's not unethical to set an artificially high price, since the seller is the one who pays in the end. If someone actually buys the house, then I'm not sure that you could say that the price was artificially high--the buying of the house indicates that the price was right.

> Why do we yell at people artificially shortening toilet cleaner supply, while at the same time not yelling at developers for artificially shortening housing supply?

I'm not really sure what you mean here.

> Looks like it is not about an economic argument after all. Seems like it’s again a pattern of abusing less privileged, weaker, less defensible people.

This sort of self-righteous hysteria has no place on HN. Fiscal conservatives are not ghouls who abhor the poor and seek to harm them. The fact that you don't know or don't understand the economic argument doesn't mean there is no economic argument--it means you are uninformed. If you're actually interested in an introduction to the economic arguments underpinning fiscal conservatism, try reading "Economics in One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt.

> Shaming them for what they naturally and humanly want - and which is the same what the privileged naturally want: To be able to say no, when they want to say no.

They're being shamed for the extraordinarily selfish expectation that society should pay 30K/year to save them from doing a yucky job. How many taxpayers does it take to fund this guy's make-work job? Based on a quick google search, you'd probably have to take every penny of tax revenue raised from 3-4 middle-class families. That's 4 families that forewent 30% of their income--and for what? So that one dude can save face? This is an egregious waste of resources and a giant middle-finger to the working class people who fund the Austrian welfare state.

> How did we start to listen to the voice of the psychopaths which want to divide us?

I find this to be hysterical in every sense of the word.