5 ms·
It is further ridiculous that the wealth itself is circularly defined with being rich. Own a house in Denver = Awesome Own a house in Manhattan = Super
by tezza 11y ago
It is further ridiculous that the wealth itself is circularly defined with being rich.
Own a house in Denver = Awesome
Own a house in Manhattan = Super Rich
Own a Dinghy = Awesome
Own a Super Yacht = Super Rich
So by this simple example the Denver Dinghy owner is much less wealthy on paper than the Manhattanite with a Super Yacht.
But you can see that the Denverite has both a house and a vessel and may not need a yacht or a downtown house. The extra 'wealth' is of no impact to the happy Denver guy.
- ksowocki 11y ago> The extra 'wealth' is of no impact to the happy Denver guy. No one is making any arguments based upon happiness or "Awesome"ness or cost of living. And yes, the Denverite is less wealthy than the Manhattanite, supposing that they both own houses that were sold to them at the median price of their geographic area.
- tezza 11y agoWell they should be making arguments on those bases. If non-'wealthy' people have a lot of both the stuff they want and all the stuff they need, then why should we worry that the 1%ers have Patek Phillipe watches with diamonds everywhere and 3 Lamborghinis. I am saying that the 'wealth' reported as being half of all wealth includes so much overpriced opulent stuff we'd never contemplate buying ever.