3 ms·
> rather than anyone reasonably described as poorer. This doesn't make sense. They are poorer than the wealthy. There is still no justification why increasing
by jimmywanger 10y ago
> rather than anyone reasonably described as poorer.
This doesn't make sense. They are poorer than the wealthy.
There is still no justification why increasing supply leads to increased costs.
- maxerickson 10y agoSay the annual income of the person renting a place goes from $300,000 to $280,000. The one with lower income isn't in any way poor.
- jimmywanger 10y ago> The one with lower income isn't in any way poor. The word used was "poorer". The one with lower income is "poorer"
- maxerickson 10y agoSure, I said reasonably described as poorer. I don't think it's reasonable to describe a household in the top decile as poorer. They are less wealthy. Saying they are poorer carries the vague implication that the parties involved are poor, it's a poor word choice.
- jimmywanger 10y ago> I don't think it's reasonable to describe a household in the top decile as poorer. Virtually anybody who lives in the United States cannot be described as "poorer" by your definition, as we're almost all richer than 95% of the world's population. It's a great word choice - you're just arguing your personal preferences and vauge implications right now. People are poorer than other people, other than Bill Gates. Since we're talking about housing prices in inflated markets right now, there's a huge difference between an engineer making 160k a year vs a director making 400k a year. The engineer is "poorer". > it's a poor word choice. Don't you mean it's a less wealthy word choice, since it's in the top decile of words that are appropriate to use in that situation?