> You can measure a country's success not by how much its top-earners pull down but by how much those at the bottom make. Wealth isn't measured in how much you

> You can measure a country's success not by how much its top-earners pull down but by how much those at the bottom make. Wealth isn't measured in how much you make. It's measured in choices. You can measure a country's success by how many choices those at the bottom have. https://mises.org/blog/wealth-isnt-just-measured-money-%E2%80%94-its-measured-choices https://mises.org/blog/wealth-isnt-just-measured-money-%E2%8... > It would be if not for the problem of housing and transportation being vastly more expensive than they were in the 1960s. You could get a cheap suburban home back then for less than a year's salary. Try that now and you're living 300 miles from the nearest city. You've now correctly identified the problem. Housing costs in the US are out of control and have been for a long time because we have policies that promote housing as an investment asset that should always grow in value. Many baby boomers have their entire net worth tied up in housing and have supported policies for decades that increase the value of that asset to support their retirement. Housing has become a vehicle for an inter-generational transfer of wealth from the young to the old.