Show me the place where you can both earn the $100k AND afford the homes. Places with higher wages also have higher costs. It doesn’t help someone in Seattle to tell them go buy a home in Oklahoma.

There's quite a few assumptions here that I disagree with:

1. Property relations are inherently tied to exploitation - That's just not true. Voluntary exchange is not exploitative. For example, let's suppose a musician makes their livelihood by owning a music school where they sell music lessons, and they need more instructors to meet demand so they go out and hire one. The person being hired is someone who sells their skills for a living, and they applied for this position of their own volition and signed a contract for a wage they find satisfactory... how is that exploitative? This is a win-win situation.

2. Ownership of property is the same as extraction of surplus value - Again, this is just not true. For example, someone living off their own farm without tenants or employees wouldn’t fit this critique.

3. Restricting access to property is inherently bad - First of all, I don't know what "reproduce themselves each day" is supposed to even mean, that's just nonsense. Regardless, restricting access to property is literally how societies manage resources. Exclusion is often necessary to prevent overuse and conflict, and when based on fair agreements, it supports both individual rights and social stability. There's a reason why human civilization evolved throughout history to favor private ownership.

4. Labor is the only source of value in a society - This is false. Things like land (natural resources), technology, knowledge, entrepreneurship, innovation, and capital (tools, infrastructure, machines) also produce value in an economy. Of course labor is important and valuable, but it is not the sole source of value. Holding this assumption as true is just economic illiteracy because you can't run an economy with just labor alone.

5. Inequality is the same as exploitation - Inequality is a difference in outcomes or opportunity while exploitation is unfair advantage. Not all inequality is exploitative, some of it is caused by things like effort, talent, merit, or choice. Exploitation, on the other hand, involves coercion or injustice, which makes it morally distinct. Exploitation can cause inequality, but not all inequality is exploitative. In this sense profit is not inherently exploitation even if it can be if obtained in certain ways.

When you remove these assumptions from the equation, there isn't really a coherent argument left. Your argument only makes sense if you accept the Marxist framework as true without a second thought, which I don't. I reject both Marxist analysis and proposals. I'm not entirely dismissive of Marxist critiques, but they have to be framed in a way where they're able to stand on their own merits for me to consider accepting them. Otherwise, there's no point because Marxism and its assumptions are simply outdated. It's an 18th century framework and ideology that was made by men of that time for societies of that time. The world has changed since then and modern economies don't work the same way anymore.

I can't tell if this is sarcasm